Government’s Response to Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or New Trial — United States v. Philossaint (Dkt. 207, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

The Government's Response to Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or 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 15, 2023. The United States opposes the defendant's motion (D.E. 202), citing United States v. Godwin, 765 F.3d 1306, for the standard of viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. It states that at trial the government admitted three applications submitted on behalf of Royal Elite Trans, LLC, One Solution Group LLC, and Dad Money Investment Group LLC. The government argues that the evidence does not preponderate heavily against the verdict and asks that the motion be denied.

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 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 1 of 5




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                           CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)(s)



   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   v.

   JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT,

          Defendant.


                          GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION
                       FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL

        The United States respectfully opposes defendant Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint’s Motion for

 Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (D.E. 202).

        In assessing a motion for judgment of acquittal, the Court

        view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and draw[s] all
        reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the verdict’s favor. A guilty verdict
        cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have
        allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Because a
        jury is free to choose among the reasonable constructions of the evidence, it is not
        necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be
        wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt.

 United States v. Godwin, 765 F.3d 1306, 1319–20 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and

 citations omitted). Philossaint argues that his statements at his naturalization interview “were

 truthful based upon his understanding of the law at the time. Mr. Philossaint, once arrested and

 represented by counsel, came to realize that his underlying conduct was, in fact, criminal.” D.E. 202

 at 1–2. He also argues that the government presented “no direct proof” of his guilt. D.E. 202 at 3.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 2 of 5




         At trial, the government admitted three applications submitted on behalf of Royal Elite

 Trans, LLC, One Solution Group LLC, and Dad Money Investment Group LLC, all of which were

 100% owned by Philossaint. GX 14–16. We also admitted analyses of Royal Elite Trans’s and One

 Solution Group’s bank records, which established that Royal Elite Trans’s application significantly

 overstated its revenues and One Solution Group’s application very significantly overstated its

 monthly payroll. GX 35r, 36p. Dad Money’s application, submitted on August 7, 2020, represented

 that the company had $398,774 in gross revenues during the 12 months prior to January 31, 2020.

 In reality, the company was organized and opened its bank account only in July 2020. GX 10, 16,

 26.

         At Philossaint’s naturalization interview on December 15, 2020, a U.S. Citizenship and

 Immigration Services (USCIS) officer asked Philossaint whether he had ever made any

 misrepresentation to obtain any public benefit in the United States. He responded that he had not.

 GX 46 at 35. Regardless of whether Philossaint understood in December 2020 that it was a crime

 to make misrepresentations to obtain a public benefit, the jury was still entitled to conclude that

 Philossaint knew in December 2020 that he had made such misrepresentations, and therefore that

 he knowingly made a false statement at his naturalization interview. On that basis, the jury could

 find that he had knowingly made false statements under oath at his naturalization interview.

         In his naturalization interview, the USCIS officer also asked Philossaint whether he had ever

 committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit, a crime or offense for which he was

 not arrested. GX 46 at 30. Philossaint also answered no. Although the jury was entitled to find

 Philossaint guilty without consideration of this question, it was also entitled to find that Philossaint


                                                    2

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 3 of 5




 knowingly answered this question falsely. The Royal Elite and Dad Money applications warned

 Philossaint that “any false statement or misrepresentation to the Small Business Administration may

 result in criminal, civil or administrative sanctions including, but not limited to fines and

 imprisonment . . . .” GX 14 at 3; GX 16 at 3. The One Solution Group application warned

 Philossaint that “knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is

 punishable under the law, including . . . by imprisonment . . . .” GX 15 at 2. On the One Solution

 Group application, Philossaint initialed next of this warning. GX 15 at 2. Therefore, the jury was

 entitled to conclude that Philossaint knew that he was committing a crime when he submitted his

 fraudulent loan applications.

         Because the jury was entitled to conclude that Philossaint knowingly made false statements

 in his naturalization interview, Philossaint’s motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied. In

 the alternative, Philossaint moves for a new trial. When considering a motion for new trial, 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). Nevertheless, “[t]he court may not reweigh the evidence and set aside the verdict

 simply because it feels some other result would be more reasonable. The evidence must preponderate

 heavily against the verdict, such that it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the verdict stand.” Id.

 at 1312–13. Therefore, “courts have granted new trial motions based on weight of the evidence only

 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 (11th Cir. 1985). Nothing of the

 sort is true here.


                                                     3

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 4 of 5




        Philossaint argues that, at the time of his naturalization interview, he 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.” D.E. 202 at 2.

 But Philossaint did not introduce any evidence that he had limited knowledge of the laws of United

 States, that he was influenced by his conspirator, or that his conspirator convinced him that his

 actions were legal. These are unsupported allegations. Even Philossaint’s assertion that he was “new

 to this country” is questionable. Philossaint entered the United States in 2016; by the time of his

 naturalization interview, he had been in this country for four years. In short, none of Philossaint’s

 factual assertions undermine the jury’s verdict.

        Philossaint does not call the Court’s attention to any significant impeachment of the

 government’s witnesses nor to any uncertainties or discrepancies in our evidence. He argues that

 Special Agent Michelle McDaniel did not know whether Philossaint knew that his actions were

 criminal. D.E. 202 at 3. On cross-examination, Special Agent McDaniel agreed that she did not have

 personal knowledge of Philossaint’s subjective state of mind; she was not asked whether she believed

 that the evidence established Philossaint’s guilt. If Philossaint disagrees with the government’s

 recollection of Special Agent McDaniel’s testimony, he should order the transcript in support of his

 motion. However, regardless of Special Agent McDaniel’s testimony, the determination of

 Philossaint’s knowledge was for the jury. The evidence does not strongly preponderate against the

 jury’s verdict; therefore, Philossaint’s motion should be denied.

        Furthermore, Philossaint’s arguments for a new trial deal concern only his statement that he

 had never committed a crime for which he had not been arrested. He does not address his other


                                                    4

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 5 of 5




 false statement during his naturalization interview, namely, that he had never made

 misrepresentations to obtain a public benefit in the United States. Even assuming for purposes of

 argument that Philossaint did not understand the American legal system, that a conspirator

 convinced him that his actions were legal, and that Special Agent McDaniel did not know whether

 he knew that his actions were criminal, the fact remains that he made misrepresentations to obtain

 government loans and then denied those misrepresentations when interviewed by USCIS. Based on

 this separate statement, the evidence does not preponderate heavily against the verdict and

 Philossaint is not entitled to a new trial.

         WHEREFORE, the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial

 should be denied.

                                                     Respectfully submitted,

                                                     MARKENZY LAPOINTE
                                                     UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                               By:   s/ Marc Osborne
                                                     Assistant United States Attorney
                                                     Court ID# A5500796
                                                     500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400
                                                     West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
                                                     Tel: (561) 209-1014
                                                     marc.osborne@usdoj.gov




                                                        5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.619841.207.0.pdf

Size

75,524 bytes

SHA-256

5f4fe2527f572eebd8961dce2b85063b062c02d143e39099f50c00764efd343f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.619841.207.0.pdf

Original

archive.org