Reply to Response to Motion by Eric Dean Sheppard — USA v. Sheppard (Dkt. 120, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Superseding Indictment, Document 120, filed 10/26/23 in United States v. Eric Dean Sheppard, No. 22-20290-CR (S.D. Fla.), signed by Jayne C. Weintraub of Nelson Mullins. Sheppard says the government's response (DE 119) fails to explain why references to his alleged accomplices are relevant to all nine wire fraud counts, since it names his wife only as applicant and signer on three loan applications. He argues the references are inflammatory and would lead the jury to speculate about accomplices it never hears about. He asks the Court to grant his motion (DE 115).

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 FORIDA 
CASE No. 22-20290-CR-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 
 
UNITES STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff,  
v.  
ERIC DEAN SHEPPARD, 
 
Defendant. 
____________________________________/ 
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF  
MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE FROM THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT 
 
The Defendant Eric Dean Sheppard, by and through his undersigned counsel, submits this 
Reply in Support of his Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Superseding Indictment [D.E. 115].  
The Government’s Response to Defendant’s motion to strike surplusage from the 
Superseding Indictment misses the mark. The Government’s purported responses to all of 
Defendant’s arguments are wholly insufficient, and the Motion should this be granted. That said, 
one of the Government’s responses calls to be addressed in this reply brief. 
Defendant moved to strike, in part, references to Mr. Sheppard’s “accomplices” as 
references to Mr. Sheppard’s alleged accomplices are irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial. 
The Government’s response fails to explain how the references to accomplices in the Superseding 
Indictment are relevant and does not rebut Defendant’s claim that these references are 
inflammatory and prejudicial. Instead, the Government states that the references to Defendant’s 
alleged accomplices should not be stricken because the Government “has a factual basis for the 
references to accomplices in the Superseding Indictment.” [DE 119 at 5]. Additionally, the 
Government names the Defendant’s wife, J.S., as being the applicant and signer on three loan 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 120   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2023   Page 1 of 3

2 
 
applications which are the subject of three Wire Fraud counts—three out of the nine Wire Fraud 
counts charged. Id. Yet, the reference to Defendant’s alleged accomplices in the Superseding 
Indictment relates to all nine counts of Wire Fraud. [DE 60 at 4-7]. Not even the Government can 
explain why that language is related to all nine counts of Wire Fraud, because it is not. [DE 119 at 
5]. The irrelevant references will instead inflame the jury and prejudice Mr. Sheppard because it 
will give the impression to the jury that there were accomplices in Defendant’s alleged scheme, 
but the jury will not hear anything about them. It will lead to speculation by the jury that there 
were accomplices involved, which serves no real purpose but to inflame the jury and prejudice Mr. 
Sheppard.  
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Eric Dean Sheppard, respectfully requests that this Court 
grant his motion to strike surplusage from the Superseding Indictment, and for such other and 
further relief as may be just and proper.  
Dated: October 26, 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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-20290-BB   Document 120   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2023   Page 2 of 3

3 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 26, 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 120   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2023   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.615773.120.0.pdf

Size

521,468 bytes

SHA-256

6ab272c768cbb65e5a38f954d07421f178fef9d3db00129bc660004d64807b0d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.615773.120.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)