Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Thomas et al USA v. Thomas et al — Carla Jackson judgment, N.D. Ga. Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Government's Use of Evidence — USA v. Thomas et al. (Dkt. 897, N.D. Ga.)

Court filing

Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Government's Use of Evidence — USA v. Thomas et al. (Dkt. 897, N.D. Ga.)

Filed February 4, 2024 in USA v. Thomas et al.; one of 81 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Filed2024-02-04

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 897 · 2024-02-04 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES                               ) 
 
 
                                                             )   
 
             v.                                             )         
                                                              )     
INDICTMENT NO. 
 
CARLA JACKSON, 
 
 
)     
1:20-CR-00296-JPB-CMS-05 
 
 
 
Defendant  
) 
 
______________________________ ) 
 
 
Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Government’s Use of Evidence During 
Trial Related to Roadrunner Automotive Group, LLC 
 
 
COMES NOW Defendant CARLA JACKSON, by and through  
undersigned counsel, and hereby files this “Motion in Limine to Prohibit the 
Government’s Use of Evidence During Trial Related to Road Runner 
Automotive Group, LLC” (hereafter “Roadrunner”). In support thereof, 
Defendant shows as follows:   
INTRODUCTION 
 
Defendant Carla Jackson is charged in counts 46 and 47 of the Second 
Superseding Indictment (“Indictment) with violations under the money 
laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).1 During trial, the 
Government may seek to introduce evidence related to “Roadrunner 
Automotive Group, LLC,” a company formed in 2019 (according to Georgia 
 
1 Ms. Jackson is not charged with any of the conspiracy counts in the 
Indictment. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 1 of 11

 
2
Secretary of State records) and which the Government has included as part 
of its intended exhibit list for trial. According to the Government’s trial 
exhibits, Defendant Carla Jackson and co-defendant John Gaines are shown 
as organizers of Roadrunner. John Gaines is also shown as the registered 
agent for this company. 
 
In addition to the Georgia Secretary of State records, the 
Government’s evidence may include bank statements for Roadrunner, 
application materials by Roadrunner for the Paycheck Protection Program, 
and additional exhibits and evidence of Whatsapp messages or email 
communications about Roadrunner between defendants in this case, notably 
between defendants John Gaines and Darrell Thomas. 
 
The Court should prohibit the introduction of any evidence related to 
Roadrunner, as such evidence is not relevant to the charges against 
Defendant Jackson, and this evidence improperly places her character into 
evidence without a finding by this Court that such evidence is admissible as 
either intrinsic evidence to the underlying charges or admissible as 404(b) 
evidence.2 Defendant Jackson also asserts that the introduction of any 
 
2 The Government has not filed any notice under Rule 404(b) of its intent to 
introduce this evidence about Roadrunner against Defendant Jackson. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 2 of 11

 
3
evidence related to Roadrunner during her trial should be prohibited under a 
Rule 403 balancing analysis for unfair prejudice. 
 
Defendant Jackson brings this motion in limine now because of the 
recent change of plea entered by codefendant John Gaines before this Court 
on January 31, 2024, and after receipt of the Government’s list of expected 
exhibits for its case in chief, sent out to all defense counsel on February 1, 
2024. Roadrunner-related documents are included in the Government’s 
exhibits. 
BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
 
Ms. Jackson is charged with two counts of money laundering based on 
two deposits allegedly made into her company business account 
(Management Resource Services, Inc.) on June 8, 2020, for $155,252.50, 
and on June 22, 2020, for $179,985.72. According to the Indictment 
allegations, the June 8, 2020 deposit was a wire transfer from a bank account 
of Gaines Reservation and Travel to a bank account of Management 
Resource Services, and the June 22, 2020 deposit was a wire transfer from a 
bank account of Gaines Reservation and Travel to a bank account of 
Management Resource Services. 
 
The Government alleges that the funds transferred to Defendant 
Jackson’s business were from illegally obtained funds by Gaines 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 3 of 11

 
4
Reservation and Travel through the Paycheck Protection Program. The 
Government avers (in part) that Defendant Jackson knew of the illegal 
source of the funds deposited into her company bank account. 
 
Ms. Jackson denies any such knowledge. 
 
When codefendant John Gaines was still included as part of the group 
of defendants proceeding to trial, the Roadrunner documents were arguably 
relevant to his charges, but none of the Roadrunner documents are relevant 
at all to the charges facing Ms. Jackson in counts 46 and 47, especially since 
John Gaines is not proceeding to trial. Their introduction into trial is also 
prejudicial to Defendant’s defense under a Rule 403 balancing analysis and 
are not admissible as either intrinsic evidence or under Rule 404(b) as “other 
acts” evidence. 
ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY 
I. 
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT 
JACKSON’S CHARGES 
 
The starting place for evidentiary admissibility is relevance. United 
States v. McGregor, 960 F.3d 1319, 1323, 1324 (11th Cir. 2020). Evidence 
is “relevant” under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence if “it has any 
tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the 
evidence” and “the fact is a consequence in determining the action.” Id., 
citing Fed. R. Evid. 401. And under Rule 402, “’[r]elevant evidence is 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 4 of 11

 
5
admissible’ unless provided otherwise by the Constitution, federal statute, 
the other Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules made by the Supreme 
Court.” Id, citing Fed. R. Evid. 402. Id. 
In the present case, evidence about the company Roadrunner has no 
relevance to the charges against Defendant Jackson, or to either of the two 
other codefendants proceeding to trial, Teldrin Foster or Jerry Baptiste. The 
only two codefendants that Roadrunner evidence could apply to would be 
Darrell Thomas and John Gaines, both of whom have entered guilty pleas 
and are not at trial. 
The Court should prohibit the Government from introducing any 
evidence about Roadrunner during trial or making any mention that 
Defendant Jackson was involved with Roadrunner in any way. It is not 
relevant evidence to Ms. Jackson or to this action. 
II. 
IF THE COURT DEEMS THE ROADRUNNER EVIDENCE 
RELEVANT, IT SHOULD STILL PROHIBIT ITS 
INTRODUCTION UNDER A RIULE 403 ANALYSIS 
 
Even if evidence is found to be relevant, a district court may 
nonetheless exclude relevant evidence under rule 403 if “its probative value 
is substantially outweighed by the danger of … unfair prejudice, confusing 
the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting the time, or needlessly 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 5 of 11

 
6
presenting cumulative to evidence.” United States v. Patrick, 513 Fed. Appx. 
882, 886 (11th Cr. 2013), citing Fed. R. Evid. 403.  
“The term ‘unfair prejudice,’ as applied to a criminal defendant, 
“speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the 
factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to 
the offense charged.” Id., citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 
180 (1997). “The primary function of Rule 403 is to exclude evidence of 
‘scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of 
its prejudicial effect.” Id., citing United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700, 707 
(5th Cir. 1979).3 
 
In the present case, admission of evidence related to Roadrunner 
would unfairly prejudice Defendant Jackson, as it would “lure” the jury into 
possibly declaring guilt “on a ground different from proof specific” to the 
two charges against Ms. Jackson in counts 46 and 47. Those two counts, and 
the underlying evidence anticipated from the Government, have nothing to 
do with Roadrunner, and any evidence related to Roadrunner should be 
 
3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the 
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former 
Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 6 of 11

 
7
precluded from admission on both relevance grounds and a Rule 403 
analysis. 
III. 
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY 404(B) 
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT JACKSON THAT IT 
INTENDED TO USE EVIDENCE ABOUT ROADRUNNER 
DURING TRIAL AGAINST HER 
 
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) requires that for a prosecutor to admit evidence 
at trial of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” involving a defendant, a prosecutor 
must: (A) “provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the 
prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair 
opportunity to meet it; (B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for 
which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that 
supports the purpose; and (C) do so in writing before trial - or in any form 
during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.” Fed. 
R. Evid. 404(b). 
The Government has not provided any such notice to Defendant 
Jackson in this case about its intent to introduce evidence about Roadrunner 
against her at trial. The Government did initially intend to introduce 
evidence about Roadrunner against codefendant John Gaines and it filed a 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 7 of 11

 
8
notice on December 19, 2023 [Doc. 772].4 In its 404(b)-notice filing against 
codefendant John Gaines [Doc. 772], the Government states: 
The United States gives formal notice of its intent to 
offer at trial evidence related to Gaines’ participation in 
the preparation and/or submission of fraudulent PPP loan 
applications between March 2020 and August 2020 for 
businesses other than Gaines Reservation, including 
Charles Smith University, Roadrunner Automotive 
Group LLC, Main Street Events, Driving Under 
Intelligence, 365 Enterprises LLC, and Management 
Resource Services. [Doc. 772, p. 2, emphasis added]. 
 
 
When codefendant John Gaines entered a guilty plea on January 31, 
2024, right near the start of jury trial, the Government’s need for this 404(b) 
evidence evaporated. Defendant Jackson has never received any similar 
(prior) notice from the Government that it intended to use the evidence about 
Roadrunner against her at trial. Ms. Jackson did not expect to see the 
Roadrunner documents (PPP loan applications, bank statements, Whatsapp 
and email communications, inter alia) in the Government’s collection of 
exhibits for trial, but they still are included. 
 
Defendant Jackson moves, in limine, to prohibit the Government’s use 
of any evidence about Roadrunner during trial. The Government did not 
provide the required pretrial notice as required under Rule 404(b), and any 
 
4 The Government filed similar 404(b) notices for codefendants Teldrin 
Foster and Jerry Baptiste. [Docs. 771, 773]. 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 8 of 11

 
9
evidence about Roadrunner against Defendant Jackson is not admissible 
under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for any purpose under that Rule. Additionally, as 
previously argued above, this evidence fails a Rule 403 balancing analysis 
and should be excluded at trial. 
IV. 
EVIDENCE OF ROADRUNNER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP 
LLC IS NOT INTRINSIC TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES 
AGAINST DEFENDANT JACKSON 
 
Evidence of a defendant’s conduct that is intrinsic to the charged 
offenses may be admissible even where it would otherwise be barred by 
Rule 404(b). United States v. Wenxia Man, 891 F.3d 1253, 1273 (11th Cir. 
2018). “Intrinsic evidence is admissible if it is (1) an uncharged offense 
which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the 
charged offense, (2) necessary to complete story of the crime, or (3) 
inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense.” 
Id., citing United States v. Troya, 733 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2013). 
 
The Government’s use of Roadrunner evidence would not satisfy any 
of these considerations as “intrinsic” evidence. John Gaines’ involvement 
with PPP loan applications and Roadrunner did not arise out of the same 
transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense against Ms. 
Jackson (money laundering involving her or the company, Management 
Resource Services, Inc.). Roadrunner evidence is unnecessary to complete 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 9 of 11

 
10
“the story of the crime” and it is not “inextricably intertwined with the 
evidence regarding the charged offense.” Again, the charged offense and 
allegations of money laundering involve Management Resource Services, 
Inc., not Roadrunner Automotive Group, LLC. 
 
Roadrunner evidence is not intrinsic evidence and should not be 
admitted during trial. 
 
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Defendant Jackson 
requests that the Court GRANT this motion, prohibit the Government’s use 
of any evidence related to Roadrunner Automotive Group LLC during trial, 
and grant such other and further relief as is just and proper. 
 
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of February, 2024. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  David D. Marshall 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David D. Marshall 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Georgia Bar No. 471517 
 
2550 Sandy Plains Road 
Suite 225 PMB 349 
Marietta, Georgia 30066 
(404) 213-1358 (phone) 
ddmarshall98@gmail.com 
 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 10 of 11

 
11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES                               ) 
 
 
                                                             )   
 
             v.                                             )         
                                                              )     
INDICTMENT NO. 
 
CARLA JACKSON, 
 
 
)     
1:20-CR-00296-JPB-CMS-05 
 
 
 
Defendant  
) 
 
______________________________ ) 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
This is to certify that the foregoing was formatted in 14-point Times 
Roman, in accordance with Local Rule 5.1C, and was electronically filed 
this day with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will 
automatically send email notification of such filing to the following: 
All defense counsel; All AUSA’s of record 
 
This 4th day of February, 2024. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  David D. Marshall 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David D. Marshall 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Georgia Bar No. 471517 
2550 Sandy Plains Road 
Suite 225 PMB 349 
Marietta, Georgia 30066 
(404) 213-1358 (phone) 
ddmarshall98@gmail.com 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 897     Filed 02/04/24     Page 11 of 11

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.gand.279867.897.0.pdf
Size
207,995 bytes
SHA-256
0414b66ac3795dc01779f08fcc7deba8c095a4bc618fa16cf610e3fe51234284
Our copy
gov.uscourts.gand.279867.897.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top