Response by USA as to Bernard Okojie re 82 Request to Charge — USA v. Okojie (Dkt. 88, S.D. Ga.)

Summary

The government's Response to Defendant Bernard Okojie's Proposed Jury Instructions, Voir Dire, and Verdict Form, Document 88, filed 03/10/23 in Case CR: 422-084 (S.D. Ga., Savannah Division). It has no objection to the proposed voir dire. It objects to the accomplice or immunized witness instruction, saying no witness has been granted immunity, and to the standalone bank fraud and money laundering instructions because Okojie is charged with conspiracy, not the substantive offenses. It also objects to an instruction that one human actor cannot conspire, and to a verdict form that would require findings on specific acts alleged in the indictment. The response is dated March 10, 2023.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
SAVANNAH DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
) 
) 
) 
 
v. 
) 
CR: 422-084 
 
BERNARD OKOJIE 
) 
) 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT BERNARD OKOJIE’S 
PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, VOIR DIRE, AND VERDICT FORM 
 
The United States objects to Defendant Bernard Okojie’s Proposed Jury 
Instructions (doc. 82) and Proposed Verdict Form (doc. 80) as follows. The United 
States has no objections to Defendant’s Proposed Voir Dire. (Doc. 82). 
1. Defendant’s Proposed Jury Instructions 
The United States objects to Instruction S1.1, Testimony of Accomplice, 
Informer, or Witness with Immunity. This instruction does not apply to this case 
because no witness has been granted prosecutorial immunity or charged by the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office in connection with this case. 
The United States objects to Instructions O52, Bank Fraud, because Defendant 
has been charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, not with the substantive 
offense of bank fraud, and because the O54 instructions in connection with the 
language of the Indictment are adequate to instruct the jury as to Count One. 
The United States objects to Instructions O74.2, Money Laundering: 
Concealing Proceeds of Specified Unlawful Activity or Avoiding Transaction 
Reporting Requirement, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) & (ii), and O74.6, Money 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 88     Filed 03/10/23     Page 1 of 4

2 
 
Laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1957, to the extent that they are listed as standalone 
instructions. They should be incorporated into the O54 instructions, as in the 
Government’s proposed jury instructions, because Defendant has been charged with 
conspiracy to commit money laundering, not with the substantive offense of money 
laundering. Additionally, the United States objects to these instructions to the extent 
they do not include instructions as to one of the three alleged objects of the money 
laundering conspiracy, as alleged in paragraph 35 of the Indictment: that Defendant 
participated in the transaction to avoid a transaction-reporting requirement under 
state or Federal law. 1 
The United States objects to Added Instruction, One Human Actor Does Not 
Allow a Conspiracy Conviction, because the Government does not intend to present 
evidence or argument to the effect that Mr. Okojie conspired with one of his own 
corporations. In the alternative, the United States requests that the Court refrain 
from including this instruction in the final charge to the jury until and unless such 
evidence or argument is presented at trial.  
2. Defendant’s Proposed Verdict Form 
 
The United States objects to Defendant’s Proposed Verdict Form as to Count 
One because it unnecessarily requires the jury to find that the Defendant did or did 
not commit specific acts alleged in the indictment, and furthermore only asks for such 
a finding as to the acts described in paragraphs 27 and 29 of the indictment (and not 
 
1 There is additionally a typo on page 30 of Defendant’s Proposed Jury Instructions: “in violation of 
18 U.S.C. 1957” should be “in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344.” 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 88     Filed 03/10/23     Page 2 of 4

3 
 
paragraphs 26 and 28). The jury need only indicate whether it finds that Defendant 
conspired to commit wire fraud and bank fraud.  
 
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of March, 2023. 
JILL E. STEINBERG 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
s/ Matthew A. Josephson 
Matthew A. Josephson 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 367216 
United States Attorney’s Office 
Southern District of Georgia 
P.O. Box 8970 
Savannah GA 31412 
T: (912) 652-4422 
matthew.josephson@usdoj.gov 
 
s/ Jennifer A. Stanley 
 
 
 
Jennifer A. Stanley 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Alabama Bar No. 8400E77T 
United States Attorney’s Office 
Southern District of Georgia 
Post Office Box 2017 
Augusta, Georgia 30903 
T: (706) 826-4525 
jennifer.stanley@usdoj.gov 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 88     Filed 03/10/23     Page 3 of 4

4 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
This is to certify that I have on this day filed this motion under seal and service 
will be made on all parties in this case in accordance with the notice of electronic 
filing (“NEF”), which will be generated as a result of electronic filing in this Court. 
 
This 10th day of March, 2023. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JILL E. STEINBERG 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/ Jennifer A. Stanley 
 
 
 
Jennifer A. Stanley 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 88     Filed 03/10/23     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.88.0.pdf

Size

163,753 bytes

SHA-256

853e97fa6ba77e50d6e86cedc5b27826a96c9d52b4d35b1576d90c68d8eaf762

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.88.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)