Court filing
Motion for New Trial (Rule 33, FRCP) by Alexandra Acosta. Responses due by 8/9/2024 — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 100, S.D. Fla.)
Filed July 26, 2024 in USA v. Alexandra Acosta; one of 136 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-07-26 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS · Doc. 100 · 2024-07-26 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
CASE NO. 23-cr-60170-RNS
)
)
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________)
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
COMES NOW, the Defendant, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA (“Acosta”), by and
through the undersigned attorney, and respectfully motions this Court to grant her a
new trial, pursuant to Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In support
thereof, Acosta states as follows:
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1.
On March 14, 2024, a superseding indictment was filed that charged
Acosta with one count of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, two counts of
making false statements to the SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (“SBA”),
and one count of wire fraud. [DN-23]
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2024 Page 1 of 7
2.
On May 28, 2024, the Court ruled on a number of very important
motions in limine. [DN-58] In essence, the Court’s rulings permitted the government
to admit 1) evidence that Acosta is a Deputy Sheriff at the BROWARD SHERIFFS
OFFICE (“BSO”), 2) evidence of Acosta’s IRS audit, 3) evidence of BSO’s outside
work policy. The Court also permitted Acosta to admit hearsay statements made to
her by the co-defendant that she intended to use to establish her good faith defense.
The Court also permitted her to admit evidence indicating that she paid the PPP loan
in full plus penalties and interest. The Court denied the government’s request to
admit evidence of Acosta’s dispute with her pool builder.
3.
On June 3, 2024, trial commenced on the superseding indictment. At
the close of the government’s case, Acosta made a first motion for judgment of
acquittal. That motion was denied. The Defense then put on a case, Acosta testified,
and Defense evidence was admitted. At the close of all evidence, Acosta made a
second motion for judgment of acquittal, however the Court reserved ruling on that
motion. At the end of trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all four counts. The
Court then gave the Defendant an initial deadline of July 19, 2024 to file post-trial
motions, including the instant one, however that deadline was later extended to July
26, 2024. The instant motion follows. A separate motion for judgment of acquittal
is being filed contemporaneously as well.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2024 Page 2 of 7
FIRST BASIS FOR RELIEF
4.
Acosta incorporates herein by reference, the motion for judgment of
acquittal that she is filing contemporaneously with the instant motion including all
exhibits. Based on the evidence admitted at trial and the information contained in
that motion, it is clear the jury acted unreasonably when they convicted Acosta. If
the Court decides to deny Acosta’s motion for judgment of acquittal, then Acosta
respectfully requests a new trial as an alternative form of relief.
SECOND BASIS FOR RELIEF
5.
Acosta contends that the jury was unduly swayed by learning that she
was a Deputy Sheriff at BSO. The Defense motion the Court to exclude this
information [DN-58] because it was overly prejudicial and its omission would not
prevent the government from telling the story of its case. This evidence only served
to inflame the jury against Acosta, who then held her to a higher standard by
unreasonably ignoring all of the exculpatory evidence presented at trial. As a result,
Acosta’s trial resulted in an outcome whose result is unreliable. In the interests of
justice, the Court should order a new trial where evidence of Acosta’s status as a law
enforcement officer is kept out or at least curtailed. At trial, the government spent
most of its testimony time asking questions about Acosta’s employment at BSO,
hammering into the jury the entire time that she is a member of law enforcement –
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2024 Page 3 of 7
which only served to unfairly turn them against Acosta more and more with each
mention. Thus, a new trial is required where that evidence is excluded or at least
minimized so that it does not unfairly prejudice Acosta.
THIRD BASIS FOR RELIEF
6.
At trial, the government was permitted to admit extensive evidence
indicating that Acosta failed to properly comply with an administrative rule at BSO
requiring deputies to submit a certain form before taking any off-duty employment.
This evidence was unfairly prejudicial in that it reiterated and reiterated and
reiterated that Acosta is a law enforcement officer. Additionally, the evidence was
unfairly prejudicial because it impugned her character by pointing out she didn’t
follow a rule at work. Thus, the jury acted unreasonably by basing its decision, at
least in part, on evidence that unfairly impugned Acosta’s character. Therefore,
Acosta would respectfully request a new trial where evidence of BSO’s off-duty
work policy is excluded or at least substantially curtailed.
FOURTH BASIS FOR RELIEF
7.
When the government wasn’t asking questions about Acosta’s
employment at BSO, it was asking questions about the minutiae of Acosta’s IRS
audit, unfairly prejudicing the jury against her. Therefore, Acosta requests a new trial
where evidence of her IRS audit is excluded or at least substantially limited.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2024 Page 4 of 7
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
8.
Per Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, “Upon the
defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the
interest of justice so requires. If the case was tried without a jury, the court may take
additional testimony and enter a new judgment.”
9.
In United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 1985),
the Court explained the standard applied to a Rule 33 motion for new trial:
On a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the
evidence, the court need not view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict. It may weigh the evidence
and consider the credibility of the witnesses. United States
v. Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313, 1319 (8th Cir. 1980); United
States v. Simms, 508 F. Supp. 1188, 1202 (W.D.La.1980).
If the court concludes that, “despite the abstract
sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the
evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily against the
verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have
occurred, it may set aside the verdict, grant a new trial, and
submit the issues for determination by another jury.”
Lincoln, 630 F.2d at 1319.
The decision to grant or deny a new trial motion based on
the weight of the evidence is within the sound discretion
of the trial court. An appellate court may reverse only if it
finds the decision to be a clear abuse of that discretion. Id.;
United States v. Indelicato, 611 F.2d 376, 387 (1st Cir.
1979). While the district court's discretion is quite broad,
there are limits to it. The court may not reweigh the
evidence and set aside the verdict simply because it feels
some other result would be more reasonable. Simms, 508
F. Supp. at 1202. The evidence must preponderate heavily
against the verdict, such that it would be a miscarriage of
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2024 Page 5 of 7
justice to let the verdict stand. Indelicato, 611 F.2d at 387;
United States v. Sinclair, 438 F.2d 50, 51 n. 1 (5th Cir.
1971) (quoting Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice
and Procedure: Criminal § 553, at 487). Motions for new
trials based on weight of the evidence are not favored.
Courts are to grant them sparingly and with caution, doing
so only in those really “exceptional cases.” Lincoln, 630
F.2d at 1319; Indelicato, 611 F.2d at 387; Simms, 508 F.
Supp. at 1202.
Applying these principles, courts have granted new trial
motions based on weight of the evidence only where the
credibility of the government's witnesses had been
impeached and the government's case had been marked by
uncertainties and discrepancies. Thus, for example,
in United States v. Simms, 508 F. Supp. at 1204-08, the
court granted a new trial, explaining there was no direct
proof of the defendant's guilt and that “the government's
case depends upon inferences upon inferences drawn from
uncorroborated testimony that . . . is subject to questions
of credibility.”
Martinez at 1312-1313.
CONCLUSION
10.
The verdicts rendered in this case are unreliable because the jury acted
unreasonably when it ignored all the exculpatory evidence admitted at trial, as was
elaborated in Acosta’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The jury gave too much
weight to the fact that Acosta is a Deputy Sheriff and to the evidence concerning
BSO’s off-duty work policy. They also gave unreasonable weight to the IRS audit
evidence. The cumulative effect of these unfair influences unjustly prejudiced the
jury against Acosta even more, resulting in an unreliable verdict.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2024 Page 6 of 7
WHEREFORE, the Defendant and the undersigned attorney respectfully
motion this Court for a new trial.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Brian Silber
______________________________
Brian Silber, Esq.
Counsel for Alexandra Acosta
Florida Bar #: 0640646
916 South Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
954-462-3636 (ofc)
silberlaw@gmail.com
briansilberlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was served on the
following parties via CM/ECF on July 26, 2024.
SERVICE LIST
AUSA Trevor Jones
U.S. Attorney’s Office SDFL
500 E. Broward Blvd, 7th Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
786-564-9109
trevor.jones@usdoj.gov
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2024 Page 7 of 7File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.100.0.pdf
- Size
- 177,822 bytes
- SHA-256
- 851f4f7a76a8e9bafdc00a967b11be461f37ff586cbfc0180cee7c917c6b9b4d
- Original
- PACER (login required)