Motion in Limine by Eric Dean Sheppard. Responses due by 9/29/2023 — USA v. Sheppard (Dkt. 84, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:22-cr-20290-BB · Doc. 84 · 2023-09-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FORIDA 
CASE No. 22-20290-CR-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 
 
UNITES STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff,  
v.  
ERIC DEAN SHEPPARD, 
 
Defendant. 
____________________________________/ 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE 
 
The Defendant Eric Dean Sheppard, by and through his undersigned counsel, submits this 
Motion in Limine, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, and 404, to preclude evidence and 
testimony about: (1) collateral business disputes; (2) Mr. Sheppard’s personal relationships, his 
children and family life; (3) potential tax violations that may have been committed by Mr. 
Sheppard that he has not been charged with; (4) Mr. Sheppard’s wealth and lifestyle; (5) employees 
or disgruntled worker’s criticisms about nonpayment; and (7) an alleged improper visa application, 
and related forgery.   
BACKGROUND 
The Superseding Indictment charges Mr. Sheppard with nine counts of Wire Fraud related 
to certain government loan applications and five counts of Aggravated Identify Theft. The 
Government contends that Mr. Sheppard submitted false and fraudulent PPP loan and EIDL 
applications on behalf of three companies and that Mr. Sheppard forged signatures of other persons 
for certain documents submitted in support of the different loan applications. [D.E. 60]. The 
expected introduction of evidence related to collateral business disputes, Mr. Sheppard’s personal 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 84   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023   Page 1 of 8

2 
 
relationships, children and family, wealth and lifestyle, any purported tax violations, employees or 
worker’s criticisms about nonpayment, an alleged improper visa application, and related forgery 
should be excluded because it is irrelevant under Rules 401 and 402, unduly prejudicial and likely 
to confuse or mislead the jury pursuant to Rule 403, and is not admissible evidence of other crimes, 
wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(b). 
ARGUMENT 
I. 
Legal Standard. 
"The real purpose of a Motion in Limine is to give the trial judge notice of the movant's 
position so as to avoid the introduction of damaging evidence which may irretrievably effect the 
fairness of the trial." Stewart v. Hooters of Am., Inc., No. 8:04-cv-40-T-17-MAP, 2007 WL 
1752843, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2007); see also Reyes v. Aqua Life Corp., No. 10-23548-CIV, 
2012 WL 12892213, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 9, 2012).  
Evidence is relevant and admissible if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less 
probable than it would be without the evidence; and . . . the fact is of consequence in determining the 
action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible under Rule 402. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 
Further, "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed 
by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the 
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403. 
Finally, character evidence or evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not admissible to prove a 
person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with 
the character. Fed. R. Evid. 404. This type of evidence may be admissible if it is used for another 
purpose, “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence 
of mistake, or lack of accident.” Id. Specifically, for evidence of other crimes or acts to be admissible 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 84   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023   Page 2 of 8

3 
 
under Rule 404(b), (1) it must be relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character; (2) there 
must be sufficient proof to enable a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
defendant committed the act(s) in question; and (3) the probative value of the evidence cannot be 
substantially outweighed by undue prejudice, and the evidence must satisfy Rule 403. United 
States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007).   
II. 
Motion in Limine No. 1: This Court Should Exclude Reference to Collateral Business 
Disputes. 
Mr. Sheppard anticipates that the Government will attempt to introduce evidence and argument 
of other collateral business disputes or allegations made by business associates.1 Over the course of 
Mr. Sheppard’s career in a very competitive and challenging business, he has been involved in business 
disputes from time to time with business associates. As is common in this type of business, associates 
have made accusations and allegations against Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Sheppard has his own allegations 
and accusations against those same associates.  
This evidence is not proper evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) of other crimes, wrongs, or 
acts. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The Government has just provided notice to Mr. Sheppard of its intent to 
use Rule 404(b) evidence. [ECF No. 77]. However, in a meet and confer this morning, the Government 
made it clear that it intends to make these types of arguments against Mr. Sheppard throughout the 
case. In fact, based on the meet and confer, defense counsel is concerned that the Government will 
attempt to suggest to the jury that Mr. Sheppard has lied and cheated with business associates (based 
only on accusations of others), and therefore, he must have lied to and cheated the banks and the SBA. 
In defending against the charges in this case, Mr. Sheppard should not have to defend against collateral 
 
1 The Government has produced evidence from a civil litigation involving Mr. Sheppard’s prior 
business associate, Wildstein Investments, Inc., et al. v. Sheppard Flagler holdings, LLC, et. al., Case 
No. 18-10456-CA-10, which has no bearing on this case at all. 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 84   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023   Page 3 of 8

4 
 
allegations and accusations and he should not have mini trials regarding collateral issues in this case. 
Instead, this evidence is classic propensity evidence which Rule 404 is designed to protect against.  
Finally, this evidence has no relevance to the issues in this case and would only cause prejudice 
by inviting the jury to consider extraneous facts and matters. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Not only is such 
evidence without relevance to the current case, but it would be highly prejudicial to Mr. Sheppard. In 
this matter, reference to extraneous business disputes involving Mr. Sheppard are without any 
probative value and would result in unfair prejudice to Mr. Sheppard, would confuse the issues, and 
would mislead the jury. This evidence will certainly result in mini side trials about other disputes, and 
will only serve to divert the issues and waste days of this Court’s time between the governments 
presentation of evidence and the cross examination by the defense. Accordingly, any statement, 
comment, and/or testimony related to collateral business disputes involving Mr. Sheppard that are not 
related to the instant case should be excluded. 
III. 
Motion in Limine No. 2: General Evidence Related to Mr. Sheppard’s Personal 
Relationships, Children, and Family Should be Excluded. 
Mr. Sheppard expects that the Government will seek to introduce evidence related to his 
personal relationships, children and family life. First, Mr. Sheppard’s personal relationships, his 
children, and family are irrelevant as it is not information that would assist the jury in determining the 
issues in the current case: whether Mr. Sheppard committed Wire Fraud or Aggravated Identify Theft. 
Second, this type of evidence is extremely personal, would only be elicited for purposes of humiliation 
and embarrassment to the Defendant and, therefore, should be excluded because it is unfairly 
prejudicial, inflammatory, and invites an emotional reaction from the jury, which Rule 403 is intended 
to prevent. 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 84   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023   Page 4 of 8

5 
 
IV. 
Motion in Limine No. 3: Mr. Sheppard’s Alleged Tax Violations Should be Excluded. 
Mr. Sheppard expects that the Government will seek to introduce evidence and make 
arguments regarding alleged tax violations. The Government has disclosed Mr. Sheppard’s 
personal accountant as a “key witness.” [D.E. 49]. The Government also intends to call Mr. Philip 
Palmer, “a revenue agent and lead employment tax specialist with the Internal Revenue Service” 
as an expert witness. [D.E. 74]. As disclosed by the Government, Mr. Palmer is expected to testify 
about: (1) an employer’s responsibilities for W-2 employees; (2) IRS forms, such as W-2, Form 
940 and Form 941s, and different tax and reporting obligations of an employer; (3) the employer’s 
responsibilities for independent contractors; and (4) the ways in which payments to a business 
partner from a partnership are to be reported to the IRS. Id. 
Evidence of Mr. Sheppard’s uncharged alleged tax violations should be excluded because 
they are irrelevant, substantially more prejudicial than probative, and improper 404(b) evidence. 
The expected testimony related to Mr. Sheppard’s alleged uncharged tax violations, including an 
employer’s tax obligations and responsibilities with respect to certain workers, is not relevant to 
any issue other than to besmirch Mr. Sheppard’s character and reputation – and, worse still, to 
induce the jury to convict because, if he did not commit the charged crimes (insofar as the workers 
were bona fide employees in view of IRS policies), then he must have committed tax violations 
(for misclassifying employees as independent contractors). In the meet and confer this morning, 
the Government confirmed its intent to make this very argument arguing that if the Defendant did 
not commit the charged PPP fraud, then he must have committed the uncharged tax violations. 
Additionally, evidence of uncharged tax violations is inflammatory and prejudicial, and will lead to 
mini trials within the trial that will only confuse and mislead the jury and therefore does not pass Rule 
403 muster. As such, the evidence should be excluded.  
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 84   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023   Page 5 of 8

6 
 
V. 
Motion in Limine No. 4: Mr. Sheppard’s Wealth and Lifestyle Should be Excluded. 
Mr. Sheppard expects that the Government will seek to introduce evidence regarding his 
personal wealth and lifestyle. For example, the Government has produced photos of Mr. 
Sheppard’s home and his personal tax returns. Although “evidence of wealth or extravagant 
spending may be admissible when relevant to issues in the case and where other evidence supports 
a finding of guilt[,]” “[u]se of a defendant's wealth to appeal to class bias can be ‘highly improper’ 
and can deprive that defendant of a fair trial.” United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1271 (11th 
Cir. 2011). Evidence of Mr. Sheppard’s wealth and lifestyle, including the introduction of pictures 
of his home and personal tax returns, is irrelevant to the issues in the current case, and is unfairly 
prejudicial and inflammatory. This type of evidence will only be used to appeal to class bias and is 
therefore highly improper. As such, any evidence related to Mr. Sheppard’s personal wealth and 
lifestyle should be excluded.  
VI. 
Motion in Limine No. 5: Evidence Related to Employees or Worker’s Criticism about 
Nonpayment Should be Excluded. 
Mr. Sheppard expects that the Government will seek to introduce evidence regarding his 
prior disgruntled employees or worker’s criticisms about nonpayment. First, this evidence is 
irrelevant as it would not assist the jury in determining the issues in the current case. Second, this type 
of evidence is improper character or 404(b) evidence and should be excluded because it has no 
probative value and is instead, unfairly prejudicial as it will only be used to unnecessarily and 
prejudicially cast Mr. Sheppard in a negative light. As such, evidence related to employees or worker’s 
criticisms about nonpayment should be excluded.  
VII. 
Motion in Limine No. 6: Documents Related to Alleged Improper Visa Application, 
Related Forgery, and Privileged Letter Should be Excluded. 
Two days ago, (On September 12), the Government produced documents related to a 
potential employee’s visa application and alleged forgery. Additionally, in this production, the 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 84   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023   Page 6 of 8

7 
 
government included what appears to be privileged communications between Mr. Sheppard and 
an immigration attorney. Upon receipt, Mr. Sheppard’s counsel immediately demanded that all 
privileged documents be destroyed by the Government. The next day, on September 13, 2032, the 
Government provided disclosure of a potential witness, with allegations to this immigration 
situation. Finally, yesterday, on September 14, 2023, the Government filed a notice of intent to 
rely on 404(b) evidence [ECF No. 77], which provided more allegations about the alleged 
improper visa application and alleged forgery. Mr. Sheppard opposes the use of this alleged 404(b) 
evidence. The defense is continuing their investigation on the matter based on the Government’s 
very recent disclosures and seeks additional time within which file an appropriate response in 
opposition before trial.  
MEET AND CONFER CERTIFICATION 
Undersigned counsel has conferred with the Government who stated the following: 
Motion in Limine No. 1 (other disputes and litigations) – The Government opposes the 
Motion.  
Motion in Limine No. 2 (Personal Relationship) – The Government consents to the Motion 
with respect to its case in chief, unless it believes the defenses opens the door. The Government 
opposes with respect cross-examining the Defendant should he testify. 
Motion in Limine No. 3 (alleged tax violations) – The Government opposes the Motion, 
stating it will argue that Defendant either committed the charged crimes or he committed tax fraud. 
Motion in Limine No. 4 (wealth and lifestyle) – The Government opposes the Motion. 
Motion in Limine No. 5 (Employee or worker claims of being underpaid) – The 
Government opposes the Motion.  
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 84   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023   Page 7 of 8

8 
 
Motion in Limine No. 6 (Rule 404(b) disclosure) – The Government does not oppose the 
Defendant having additional time to respond. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Eric Dean Sheppard, respectfully requests that this Court 
exclude evidence and testimony related to: (1) collateral business disputes; (2) Mr. Sheppard’s 
personal relationships, children and family life; (3) potential tax violations that may have been 
committed by Mr. Sheppard that he has not been charged with; (4) Mr. Sheppard’s wealth and 
lifestyle; (5) employees or worker’s criticisms about nonpayment; and (7) alleged improper visa 
application and related forgery, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.  
 
Dated: September 15, 2023   
 
 
Respectfully submitted,  
NELSON MULLINS  
One Biscayne Tower, 21st Floor  
2 S. Biscayne Boulevard  
Miami, FL 33131  
Telephone: 305.373.9400  
By: /s/ Jayne C. Weintraub 
Jayne C. Weintraub 
Florida Bar No. 320382 
Jonathan Etra  
Florida Bar No. 686905 
Christopher Cavallo  
Florida Bar No. 0092305 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 15, 2023 the foregoing document was filed via 
the Court’s CM/ECF system to all counsel of record.  
/s/ Jayne C. Weintraub  
Jayne C. Weintraub 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 84   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023   Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.615773.84.0.pdf

Size

643,495 bytes

SHA-256

21b771d1562383ff3b562f7ac381e5080324263cd34ff2d121276d7bcfc5800f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.615773.84.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)