Motion for Judgment of Aqcuittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial — United States v. Philossaint (Dkt. 202, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

A Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial in United States of America v. Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint, Case No. 22-80144-CR-SMITH/MAYNARD(s)(s), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, filed February 13, 2023 under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29(c) and 33. The motion states that Philossaint pled guilty to the first three counts and was convicted by the jury at a trial on February 6, 2023 and February 7, 2023 on count 4, obtaining citizenship by fraud. It argues that the weight of the evidence does not support the verdict because he did not know his statements to immigration officials were untrue when he made them. Defense counsel Ian J. Goldstein asks the Court to enter a judgment of acquittal or grant a new trial.

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

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2023 Page 1 of 4




                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                        CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-SMITH/MAYNARD(s)(s)

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff,

 vs.

 JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT,
             Defendant.
 ___________________________________/

                       MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF AQCUITTAL
                      OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL

        The defendant, Joff Philossaint, through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Motion for

 Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial pursuant to Federal Rules of

 Criminal Procedure 29(c) and 33 and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, on

 the grounds that the weight of the evidence does not support the verdict.

        In support thereof, he would state as follows:

                                         BACKGROUND

        Joff Philossaint was indicted with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two

 counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and one count of obtaining citizenship by

 fraud. Philossaint pled guilty to the first three counts, and proceeded to trial on count 4,

 obtaining citizenship by fraud. The trial began on February 6, 2023 and ended on February 7,

 2023. The jury convicted Mr. Philossaint of the sole count presented at trial.

         The government’s theory of prosecution was that Mr. Philossaint knowingly made

 misrepresentations during the immigration process. Mr. Philossaint’s defense was primarily that

 he did not knowingly lie on his immigration application and attendant documents. Rather, his



                                                 1

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2023 Page 2 of 4




 answers were truthful based upon his understanding of the law at the time. Mr. Philossaint, once

 arrested and represented by counsel, came to reaalize that his underlying conduct was, in fact,

 criminal. As such, as indicated above, he pled guilty to the charges of conspiracy to commit wire

 fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. However, at the time his statements to

 immigration officials were made, he did not know them to be untrue. Mr. Philossaint was new to

 this country, had limited knowledge of the laws of the United States, and was influenced by a yet

 to be indicted co-conspirator who convinced him that what they were doing was lawful. The

 Government failed to meet its burden of proof as to the elements of the crime, to wit: (1) the

 Defendant knowingly procured (2) contrary to law (3) the naturalization of any person.

                                    MEMORANDUM OF LAW

        Mr. Philossaint moves for a judgement of acquittal or a new trial because the verdict was

 not supported by the weight of the evidence. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29,

 “after the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the

 defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is

 insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 provides that

 “upon the defendant’s motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the

 interest of justice so requires.” Here, the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

 Further, Mr. Philossaint had the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United

 States Constitution. He was deprived of that right when the jury convicted him. The interests of

 justice therefore require a new trial.

                     The verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence

        After the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter

 an acquittal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)(2). A motion for acquittal must be granted when, after



                                                 2

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2023 Page 3 of 4




 viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the court finds that a

 reasonably minded jury must have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any essential

 elements of the crimes charged.” United States v. Frol, 518 F.2d 1134 (8th Cir. 1975); United

 States v. Davis, 981 F.2d 906 (6th Cir. 1992). Unlike with a motion for judgment of acquittal, in

 cases where the defense requests a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, “the court need

 not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. It may weigh the evidence and

 consider the credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312 (11th

 Cir. 1985). Further, if the court finds that, “despite the abstract sufficiency of the evidence to

 sustain the verdict, the evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily against the verdict that a

 serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred,” the court may grant a new trial. Id. In

 Martinez, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out that courts have granted new trial motions in cases

 where “the credibility of the government’s witnesses had been impeached and the government’s

 case had been marked by uncertainties and discrepancies.” Id. at 1313 (citing United States v.

 Simms, 508 F. Supp. 1188,1204-08 (W.D. La. 1980) (wherein the court granted a new trial

 because there was no direct proof of the defendant’s guilt and “the government’s case

 depend[ed] upon inferences upon inferences drawn from uncorroborated testimony that . . . is

 subject to questions of credibility.”)). Here, there was no direct proof of Mr. Philossaint’s guilt.

 Furthermore, even the lead case agent, Special Agent Michelle McDaniels of the FBI, testified

 that she did not know if Mr. Philossaint was aware of the criminality of his actions at the time he

 provided the answers regarding same to immigration officials. If Special Agent McDaniels did

 not know, how could the jury have been convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

         While the answers provided by Mr. Philossaint turned out to be false, the jury was

 presented with no proof that his statements were made to immigration officials, knowing them to



                                                  3

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 202 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2023 Page 4 of 4




 be so at the time.

                                         CONCLUSION

        Any reasonably minded jury must have a reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Philossaint

 knowingly committed a crime as charged in count four of the second superseding indictment.

 Mr. Philossaint respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a judgment of acquittal or, in the

 alternative, grant him a new trial.

                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been electronically filed and served on

 counsel for all parties via CM/ECF this 13th day of February, 2023.

                                              Respectfully submitted,

                                              LAW OFFICES OF IAN GOLDSTEIN P.A.
                                              Counsel for Defendant Philossaint
                                              330 Clematis Street, Suite 209
                                              West Palm Beach, FL 33401
                                              Tel: (561) 600-0950
                                              Email: ian@iangoldsteinlaw.com
                                              /s/ Ian J. Goldstein
                                              IAN J. GOLDSTEIN, ESQUIRE
                                              Florida Bar No. 0085219




                                                 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.619841.202.0.pdf

Size

91,504 bytes

SHA-256

0b2596ab2766347ea21b9c68ece44cb1af15b1f16073856420140d1b0df2acdd

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.619841.202.0.pdf

Original

archive.org