Court filing

Government’s Trial Brief — United States v. Erhinmwinrose (Dkt. 234, D. Colo.)

Summary

The government's trial brief in United States v. Ikponmwosa Pero Erhinmwinrose, Criminal Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed November 21, 2025 as Document 234. Submitted ahead of the pretrial conference, it flags five legal issues the government expects at trial and suggests how several could be resolved in advance. It asks the court to authenticate copies of data extracted from electronic devices without live witnesses, naming agents and analysts who performed downloads from devices belonging to Agbure, Tobore and the defendant. It also asks for a ruling on the authenticity of content from electronic accounts and devices, describes two witnesses and a proposed jury instruction, and states that the government will offer summary exhibits based on business records.

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

Filed November 21, 2025 in Ikponmwosa Pero Erhinmwinrose; one of 3 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Filed	2025-11-21

Cite this document

“Government’s Trial Brief — United States v. Erhinmwinrose (Dkt. 234, D. Colo.).” U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, No. 1:23-cr-00300, Doc. 234, filed 2025-11-21. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-ikponmwosa-pero-erhinmwinrose-cod-225575/2025-11-21-gov-uscourts-cod-225575-234-0-doc-234/, SHA-256 0c90d372c716078fcf0b87b40c0cc3a1b40dd8e24937d75c466ff5053a30652e.

Full text

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No: 1:23-cr-00300-CNS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

1. IKPONMWOSA PERO ERHINMWINROSE,

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________

GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL BRIEF
______________________________________________________________________

In advance of the pretrial conference, the government submits this trial brief to

flag five potential legal issues that may arise during trial, while also noting how many of

the issues could be resolved in advance of trial to make the trial more efficient and

avoid wasting the Court’s and jury’s time on issues not relevant to the defendant’s guilt.

1. The Court can authenticate copies of data extracted from electronic devices
without the need for live witnesses

Three government witnesses will testify solely about copying data from devices:

• Senior Special Agent Umesh Patel performed two relevant downloads from

devices belonging to Agbure.

• Digital Investigative Analyst Toshiro Muragaki performed two relevant downloads

from devices belonging to Agbure.

Computer Scientist / Analyst Joshua Kulp performed seven relevant downloads

from devices belonging to Tobore and two from items belonging to the defendant

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 11

The Court could streamline trial by ruling in advance of trial based on these

agents’ Rule 902(14) affidavits (Ex. 1) that this data is what it purports to be: a copy of

data from an electronic device, storage medium, or file. As noted by the Advisory

Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902(14) reflects that “the expense

and inconvenience of producing a witness to authenticate an item of electronic evidence

is often unnecessary.” Rule 902(14) includes a notice provision, and the government

first provided notice to the defendant that it intended to authenticate these records by

affidavit on October 28, 2025. Ex. 2. It did so a second time as part of its expert notice

on November 8, 2025 and by a supplement on November 12, 2025 that informed the

defendant that the government intended to offer all these copies of data through

affidavit in accordance with Fed. R. Evid. 902(11), (13) and (14) and that, while it was

noticing one of these affiants as an expert out of an abundance of caution, the

witnesses would testify as fact witnesses because no expertise is required to testify

about copying data from an electronic device. Ex. 3. The defendant did not dispute that

the witnesses were lay witnesses within the Court’s deadline but has insisted on live

testimony for these foundational witnesses and opposes self-authentication of the data

through the Rule 902(14) affidavits.

But requiring in-person testimony is unnecessary when the affidavits fully lay the

foundation and make the copies self-authenticating. See United States v. Judkins, ECF

No. 113, 21-cr-55 (Oct. 18, 2022) (concluding that data copied from an electronic

devices is self-authenticating if accompanied by certification and citing cases from First,

Second and Ninth Circuits); United States v. Palmer, 2025 WL 2978633, at *10

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 11

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2025) (finding phone extracts self-authenticating without live

testimony based on Rule 902(13) and (14) affidavit).

The defendant’s objection to a valid Rule 902(14) affidavit is especially meritless

where, as here, much of the content will be admitted before the foundational witnesses

testify and other witnesses will testify as to the substance of the messages. Most device

content at trial will come from devices belonging to Tobore, who is competent to testify

about the authenticity of his own devices. See United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988,

999 (7th Cir. 1999) (distinguishing between authentication by the author of content and

through circumstantial evidence when the author does not testify). And because he can

authenticate his own content, it’s hard to see what value later putting on the foundation

witnesses would have when the rules of evidence do not require it and the author of the

content is available to testify. Second, the download and content of the devices was

reviewed by Investigative Specialist Elizabeth Dale and Special Agent Matthew

Zimmerman, both of whom the government will call as witnesses and who the

defendant can cross examine about their testimony and conclusions.

The Court can streamline trial by ruling that data copied by these three agents—

supported by affidavit—is self-authenticating. To the extent these affiants must provide

live testimony—and based on the number of devices each will authenticate—the

government anticipates it will amend its witness list to increase the time needed for

direct testimony.

2. The Court can rule on the authenticity of content from electronic accounts
and devices based on the record of the November 24, 2025 pretrial hearing

Apple, Google, and Microsoft (“providers”) submitted declarations certifying that

the records they produced meet the requirements of Rule 803(6). That is, the providers

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 11

created and maintained the texts and emails, they were kept by the providers as part of

their regular business activities, and they were made as part of the providers’ respective

business. These declarations from the providers are thus sufficient to show that the

texts and emails are authentic copies of records created and maintained by the

providers. See United States v. Ayelotan, 917 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 2019) (finding that

emails obtained from Google and Yahoo! accompanied by certification were admissible

under Rule 803(6)).

But the providers do not create the content of the texts or emails they maintain in

their businesses. The Court must also authenticate that content is what it purports to be:

content from accounts of the defendant or coconspirators. See, e.g., United States v.

Gal, 606 F. App’x 868, 874-75 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming trial court ruling admitting

emails where certification showed that Yahoo made record of email and other evidence

established that defendant sent them).

Because a defendant usually does not authenticate his or her own electronic

content, such content more typically is authenticated using Rule 901(b)(3) or 901(b)(4).

See, e.g., United States v. Barber, 937 F.3d 965, 970 (7th Cir. 2019) (providing as

examples for authenticating content on an online account under Rule 901 “the presence

of a nickname, date of birth, address, email address, and photos” in the account);

Fluker, 698 F.3d at 999 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting that electronic communications can be

authenticated based on circumstantial evidence under Rule 901(b)(4)); United States v.

Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630-31 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that there was sufficient

evidence to authenticate emails under Rule 901, that any concerns about alteration or

deletion were introduced by the defendant himself, and that such deletions would go to

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 11

weight of the evidence, not its admissibility); United States v. Bertram, 259 F. Supp. 3d

638, 642-644 (E.D. Ky. 2017) (“After considering the characteristics of the numerous

emails at issue in this case as well as the context and background testimony provided

by the authenticating witnesses, the Court has little doubt that the emails are exactly

what they purport to be, and this remains true regardless of whether the authenticating

witness was a sender or recipient.”).

While the government’s previous Notice of Federal Rule of Evidence

801(D)(2)(A) and (E) Statements (ECF No. 211) explained that the statements in each

account are not hearsay, the same evidence also authenticates the content from the

electronic accounts listed in ECF Nos. 211-1 and 211-2 under Rules 901(b)(3) and

901(b)(4). Fluker provides a good example: there, email addresses indicated that an

email was sent by a member of “MTE,” which was a business organization used by the

conspirators. And the contents of those emails established that whoever sent the email

had information that would only be known by an “insider.” 698 F.3d at 999-1000. This

was sufficient for the items to be authenticated and other rules of evidence—like the co-

conspirator statement exception to the hearsay rule—provided a basis for admission. Id.

at 1000. See also United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 40 (D.D.C. 2006)

(“The Court notes that it is possible to authenticate these emails through examination of

the contents, distinctive characteristics, and appearance, and others by comparison to

authenticated e-mails, and the jury is free to make its own examinations and

conclusions.”).

During the upcoming hearing on Rule 801(d)(2)(A) and (E) statements, the Court

thus can consider the same evidence consisting of the government’s proffer, agent

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 11

testimony, and all exhibits presented to both (i) authenticate the content under Rule

901(a), and (ii) make preliminary admissibility findings under the exceptions to the

hearsay rule set forth in Rules 801(d)(2)(A), 801(d)(2)(E) and 803(6). Just as in Barber,

Fluker, Bertram, and Safavian there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence under

901(b)(3) and (4) that the text and email content for the accounts in the government’s

proffer are authentic. The messages themselves include content that only “insiders”

would know: they contain ties to the defendant and ledgers of identity-theft victim

information used on applications for COVID-relief loans, tax refunds, and unemployment

benefits. See, e.g., ECF No. 211-3; ECF No. 211-6.

And unlike the usual case, the Court also can rely on Erhinwinrose’s own words

to authenticate the content in the accounts. He admitted in a proffer that he used the

personal accounts in ECF No. 211-1, including icomo4real and ipemyp2. And those

personal accounts uniquely connect him to the fraud accounts in the same exhibit, as

laid out in other exhibits to ECF No. 211: (a) he previously used a version of his name,

“Pero ik,” as his display name for the ledger account (211-9, at 1-2), (b) he stored his

birth certificate, school records, and photographs in the ledger account’s Google Drive

folders (211-9, at 3-8), (c) he searched emails in fraud accounts for his own name or

emails he forwarded from his personal accounts (211-9, at 10-13), (d) he attached his

credit report to a Google instant message to a coconspirator (211-9, at 9), (e) he

accessed his ledger account from the same browser on the same computer he used to

access his personal email and numerous other fraud email accounts (211-8), and (f) he

used his own distinctive passwords and subject lines across personal and fraud

accounts (211-4, 211-5, 211-10). In addition to saving screenshots of the ledger

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 11

account in his personal icomo4real gmail account (211-12), he also routinely saved to

the icomo4real account’s Google Photos folders screen captures (Ex. 4) documenting

his crimes, including of a stack of $100 bills, emails from state unemployment agencies

about fraudulent applications submitted using his facilitating accounts such as

arizonaonetwothree, PII of identity theft victims used in the fraud and money laundering

conspiracy, GoBank or GreenDot cards purchased by money runners, and advice he

offered to subordinates about romance scams:

When Tobore’s residence was searched in connection to his involvement in

Erhinmwinrose’s conspiracy, Erhinmwinrose replaced his old electronic devices in an

attempt to destroy evidence, drove to Tennessee to help Tobore destroy evidence, and

fled the country which is additional confirmation that he occupied the hub of the

conspiracy wheel. See ECF No. 215. All of this evidence makes it more than apparent

that the texts and messages are what they purport to be: communications between and

among Erhinmwinrose, his co-defendants, and other coconspirators working together to

rob the government of over $8 million.

Government exhibits also include files Google provided—such as the ledger

accounts’ log files containing Google chat or hangout messages and Google Drive file

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 11

paths—with the content rendered in a more readable and visually appealing way.

Nothing about this rendering, whether done by manually by cutting and pasting relevant

messages from the log file and putting them into a word file, rendering content more

readable, or displaying the metadata such as date created or file path, changes this

analysis related to authenticity. See, e.g., United States v. Kilpatrick, 2012 WL 3236727,

at *6 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2012) (noting that government could take texts produced by

cell phone company in excel file and extract them into WordPerfect to make them more

readable). Using reliable software just saves time and makes the evidence accessible to

the Court and the jury.

3. The government will present two witnesses and has proposed a jury
instruction because the defendant has not stipulated to venue for any counts

Although the government proposed factual stipulations related to venue, the

defendant has not agreed to any of them. See Ex. 5 (proposed factual stipulations). As

a result, the government included two witnesses on its witness list who will testify about

venue (and also will introduce testimony related to venue through other witnesses). The

parties also have provided a stipulated jury instruction about venue, and the

government anticipates that this is the instruction most likely to change based on the

way evidence comes in based on the complicated legal questions and different standard

of proof.

4. The government will offer extensive summary exhibits based on admissible
business records.

A crime of this magnitude generates voluminous electronic content, financial

records, and loan paperwork. The government intends to introduce summary exhibits

prepared by agents based on their review of voluminous bank, cell-site, loan, tax, IP

address, unemployment, and other records that are authentic business records

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg 9
of 11

supported by business records certificates. See ECF No. 223, at 51-52 (1000 series

exhibits); ECF No. 212 (Notice of Business Records Certificates).

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, summary exhibits are routinely admitted

through lay witnesses to summarize the contents of voluminous business and financial

records. See Harris Mkt. Rsch. v. Marshall Mktg. & Commc’ns, Inc., 948 F.2d 1518,

1525 (10th Cir. 1991) (recognizing that Rule 1006 “clearly permits the use of a summary

of business records provided all of the records from which it is drawn are otherwise

admissible”); United States v. Caballero, 277 F.3d 1235, 1247 (10th Cir. 2002) (lay

financial analysis witness permitted to summarize business records and present those

items in a condensed form).

5. Business and public records supported by a certificate are self-
authenticating

The defendant did not challenge any of the business records certificates and

previously indicated that he would stipulate to the authenticity of such records when

supported by a certificate but has not agreed to the language in a proposed stipulation

drafted by the government. See ECF No. 212. Thus, for avoidance of doubt, the

government requests that the Court enter an order formally finding that the business

and public records noticed in ECF No. 212 (or absence thereof) are self-authenticating

and covered by exceptions to the rule against hearsay, including for business records

(803(6)) and public records (803(8)). The government also anticipates filing a

supplemental notice on November 24 based on new certificates that have been

received since the previous notice.

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg
10 of 11

PETER MCNEILLY
United States Attorney

s/ Craig Fansler
Craig Fansler
Sonia Dave
Assistant United States Attorneys
United States Attorney’s Office
1801 California Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 454-0100
Craig.Fansler2@usdoj.gov
Sonia.Dave@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 234 filed 11/21/25 USDC Colorado pg
11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 21, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing

GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL BRIEF with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system

which will send notification of such filing to counsel for the defendant.

s/ Elizabeth Gomez Solis
Elizabeth Gomez Solis
Legal Assistant
United States Attorney’s Office

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cod.225575.234.0.pdf
Size: 394,142 bytes
SHA-256: 0c90d372c716078fcf0b87b40c0cc3a1b40dd8e24937d75c466ff5053a30652e
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cod.225575.234.0.pdf
Original: archive.org