Joint Pretrial Statement by USA as to Cortney Merritts — USA v. Merritts (Dkt. 34, D.D.C.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · No. 1:25-cr-00076-JMC · Doc. 34 · 2025-11-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
: 
:  
 
v. 
 
 
 
:  
Case No. 25-cr-00076-JMC 
: 
  
CORTNEY MERRITTS, 
 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
Defendant. 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT 
The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for 
the District of Columbia, and defendant Cortney Merritts, by and through his attorneys Justin 
Gelfand and Joseph DiRuzzo, respectfully submit their Joint Pretrial Statement in accordance with 
the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 11): 
I. 
Plea Offers 
On June 6, 2024, during a reverse proffer the government extended the following pre-
indictment plea offer to Merritts: to plead guilty to one count of Bank Fraud, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1344.  That plea offer was declined on June 11, 2024.  On June 16, 2025, the government 
extended the following post-indictment plea offer to Merritts: to plead guilty to one count of Wire 
Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.  That plea offer was declined on June 26, 2025. 
Both of the plea offers were immediately communicated to Mr. Merritts, who had the 
opportunity to consult with his legal counsel.  The pre-indictment plea offer was also initially 
communicated to Mr. Merritts’s defense counsel in Mr. Merritts’s presence and was subsequently 
conveyed to Mr. Merritts immediately thereafter during confidential and privileged 
communications.  With respect to each of the plea offers, both of which Mr. Merritts rejected, 
defense counsel explained the possible sentencing implications including, but not limited to, the 
Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC     Document 34     Filed 11/26/25     Page 1 of 5

2 
 
statutory range(s) of punishment and the advisory Guidelines range(s) pursuant to the U.S. 
Sentencing Guidelines.  In those discussions, defense counsel also explained sentencing 
procedures and the statutory considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in the event of a conviction.  
Finally, it should be noted that these discussions between Mr. Merritts and defense counsel did not 
include Mr. DiRuzzo but included Justin Gelfand and Gregory Bailey, both of whom are former 
federal prosecutors previously employed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Tax Division 
(Southern Criminal Section) and both of whom have extensive experience in criminal defense 
matters.  
II. 
Proposed Statement of the Case 
This is a criminal case entitled United States v. Cortney Merritts.  Mr. Merritts has been 
charged by indictment with two counts of wire fraud.1  It is alleged that, on or about July 8, 2020, 
Mr. Merritts prepared and submitted and caused to be submitted a fraudulent application for a 
COVID-19 pandemic-related loan through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program for a 
moving business he allegedly owned under the name “Cortney Merritts.”  It is also alleged that on 
or about April 22, 2021, Mr. Merritts prepared and submitted and caused to be submitted a 
fraudulent application for a COVID-19 pandemic-related loan through the Paycheck Protection 
Program for a moving business he allegedly owned under the name “Cortney Merritts.”  
Specifically, the prosecution alleges that Mr. Merritts voluntarily and intentionally devised a 
scheme to defraud these government programs through the use of interstate wires and acted with 
 
1 Mr. Merritts maintains his position set out in his motion to dismiss for failure to charge an 
offense.  However, Mr. Merritts does not seek to further litigate that issue in this pleading but is 
raising it to avoid any argument of waiver in the event his motion is denied. 
Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC     Document 34     Filed 11/26/25     Page 2 of 5

3 
 
the specific intent to defraud.2  Mr. Merritts has pleaded not guilty to both counts and the 
prosecution bears the burden of proving, if it can,3 the charges in the indictment. 
III. 
Proposed Voir Dire Questions:  The government’s proposed voir dire questions are 
located at Attachment No. 1.  The defendant’s proposed voir dire questions, including 
the government’s objections, are located at Attachment No. 2. 
IV. 
List of Proposed Jury Instructions:  See Attachment No. 3.  The parties respectfully 
reserve the right to supplement or amend the jury instructions depending upon the trial 
evidence. 
V. 
List of Expert Witnesses:  None. 
VI. 
List of Prior Convictions that the Government Intends to Use for Impeachment 
or Any Other Purpose:  None. 
VII. 
List of Exhibits:  The government’s exhibit list, including the defendant’s objections 
and the government’s responses, is located at Attachment No. 4.  The defendant’s 
exhibit list, including the government objections, is located at Attachment No. 5.  The 
parties respectfully reserve the right to supplement or modify their exhibit lists and 
objections as they continue preparing for trial.  The government also notes that its 
exhibit list does not currently list all materials that may be used for potential 
 
2 The government objects to the highlighted proposed language from the defendant.  The point of 
the neutral statement of the case is to inform prospective jurors of the basic facts and nature of 
the charges to determine if they (1) know anything about the case, or (2) have any preconceived 
notions or biases that could prevent them from rendering a fair and impartial verdict.  Listing the 
elements of the substantive offenses does nothing to further those goals.   
Moreover, the proposed language does not include every element, or even accurately track the 
jury instructions that will be given during the trial, and is therefore likely to cause confusion. 
3 The government objects to the highlighted proposed language from the defendant.  “If it can” 
adds nothing to the defendant’s apparent desire for the neutral statement of the case to inform the 
prospective jurors that the government bears the burden of proof in this case. 
Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC     Document 34     Filed 11/26/25     Page 3 of 5

4 
 
impeachment or refreshing witnesses’ recollections.  Nor does it list any of the 
documents included on the defendant’s exhibit list that the government may seek to 
introduce in its case-in-chief.  The government will make those additions as necessary 
as it continues to modify its exhibit list while preparing for trial. 
VIII. Any Stipulations of the Parties:  None currently. 
IX. 
Proposed Verdict Form:  See Attachment No. 6. 
X. 
List of Proposed Witnesses:  See Attachment No. 7 (Government’s Witness List); 
Attachment No. 8 (Defendant’s Witness List).  The parties respectfully reserve the right 
to supplement or modify their witness lists as they continue preparing for trial.  The 
parties will exchange Jencks materials by January 5, 2026, and will continue to timely 
provide any additional Jencks materials that are created during trial preparation. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JEANINE FERRIS PIRRO 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
__/s/ Brian P. Kelly__    
BRIAN P. KELLY (D.C. Bar No. 983689) 
EMILY A. MILLER (D.C. Bar No. 462077) 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
United States Attorney’s Office 
District of Columbia 
601 D Street NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
Office (Kelly): (202) 252-7503 
Office (Miller): (202) 252-6988 
 
FOR DEFENDANT CORTNEY MERRITTS 
 
Margulis Gelfand DiRuzzo & Lambson 
 
 /s/ Justin K. Gelfand  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justin K. Gelfand 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 750 
 
 
 
 
 
 
St. Louis (Clayton), MO 63105 
Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC     Document 34     Filed 11/26/25     Page 4 of 5

5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(314) 390-0230 
Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC     Document 34     Filed 11/26/25     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.dcd.278640.34.0.pdf

Size

228,459 bytes

SHA-256

2381c42dc51420f38d8988c12900c3a1f1d9e1565cef861179106bf3973b1eb2

Our copy

gov.uscourts.dcd.278640.34.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)