Memorandum Opinion and Order — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 305, S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00192 · Doc. 305 · 2025-07-01 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
 
 
CHARLESTON DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:24-cr-00192 
 
KISHA SUTTON -01, 
SHAMIESE WRIGHT -02, 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
The Court has reviewed the Government’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Arguments and 
Evidence Advocating Jury Nullification (Document 270), Defendant Kisha Sutton’s Response to 
Government’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Arguments and Evidence Advocating Jury 
Nullification (Document 273), Defendant Shamiese Wright’s Response to Government’s Motion 
in Limine to Preclude Arguments and Evidence Advocating Jury Nullification (Document 286), 
the Government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Defense Evidence (Document 271), 
Defendant Kisha Sutton’s Response to Government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed 
Defense Evidence (Document 274), Defendant Shamiese Wright’s Response to Government’s 
Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Defense Evidence (Document 282), and the 
Government’s Omnibus Reply to Defendant Kisha Sutton’s Response to Government’s Motion in 
Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Defense Evidence and Defendant Shamiese Wright’s Response to 
Government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Evidence (Document 297). 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 305     Filed 07/01/25     Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1552

2 
1. Motion to Preclude Arguments and Evidence Advocating Jury Nullification 
In the Government’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Arguments and Evidence Advocating 
Jury Nullification (Document 270), the Government seeks to exclude evidence of penalties the 
Defendants may face, impacts that a felony conviction may have on Ms. Wright’s nursing 
education and licensure, family and financial situations, and any medical diagnoses or disabilities 
the Defendants may have.  The Government contends that evidence about these subjects is 
irrelevant to the Defendants’ guilt or innocence and will only invite jury nullification. 
Both Defendants state they do not intend to present evidence of potential penalties, but Ms. 
Sutton argues that the motion is nevertheless premature and should be denied.  Although the 
Government seeks exclusion of only Ms. Wright’s education, Ms. Sutton states that her own 
employment, education, and training is relevant to her credibility and intent to commit a crime.  
Ms. Wright argues that her education is relevant to her good character, her requisite intent to 
knowingly participate in a bank fraud scheme, her defense that Lydia Spencer participated and 
controlled the loan process, and her credibility.  Ms. Sutton states that evidence of her family and 
household may be relevant because the Government cannot pinpoint who was operating the 
internet when the loan applications were submitted.  Ms. Wright argues that the jury should be 
able to consider family responsibilities and education history in determining whether these factors 
negate the Government’s portrayal of her as someone who has committed fraud.  Neither 
Defendant intends to use evidence about medical diagnoses or disabilities they may have, unless 
it becomes relevant at trial. 
Since both Defendants state they do not intend to present evidence about penalties they 
may face if convicted or about medical diagnoses and disabilities, the Government’s motion in 
limine to exclude evidence related to those issues is granted. 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 305     Filed 07/01/25     Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1553

3 
“Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a 
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.”  Fed. R. Evid. 
404(a)(1).  Evidence may be presented about the Defendants’ current employment to provide 
basic background information.  However, the Defendants’ education, employment, and training 
is irrelevant to their respective intent or ability to commit a crime, credibility, and good character.  
Because a defendant may only offer evidence of their own relevant, pertinent traits under Rule 
404(a)(2)(A) and in the manner prescribed in Rule 405, the Defendants cannot offer irrelevant 
information about their education or employment.  The Government’s motion in limine to exclude 
this evidence is granted, as specified herein. 
Additionally, the Defendants’ family and financial situations are also irrelevant to the 
alleged conduct.  Ms. Wright’s contention that the jury should be able to consider these factors to 
negate the Government’s portrayal of her as someone who has committed fraud is the precise type 
of character evidence the Rules seek to exclude from trial.  A jury may be persuaded to nullify by 
a defendant’s financial hardship or their status as a parent.  The Court finds that these 
considerations are not relevant in this case and must be excluded.  However, Ms. Sutton may 
present evidence that other people live with her and have access to her computer, without going 
into the details of her family relationships.  The Government’s motion to exclude evidence of 
family and financial situations is granted. 
 
2. Motion to Exclude Undisclosed Defense Evidence 
In the Government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Defense Evidence 
(Document 271), the Government states that neither Ms. Sutton nor Ms. Wright have provided 
reciprocal discovery as required under Rule 16.1(d) of the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure.  
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 305     Filed 07/01/25     Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1554

4 
The Government requests that the Court prohibit the Defendants from introducing undisclosed 
documentary or physical evidence to avoid surprise evidence at trial, which Rule 16.1 seeks to 
prevent.  The Defendants argue that the motion is premature because the 14 days that Rule 16.1 
provides for reciprocal discovery have not elapsed.  Ms. Sutton also contends that the 
Government’s motion fails to provide adequate context and is general in nature.  She points to a 
concurrence by Justice Ketchum of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, wherein he 
stated that generalized motions in limine “on legal issues presented in a vacuum are often 
frivolous.”  (Document 274 at 2). 
Local Rule 16.1(d) states that a “[d]efendant must provide all reciprocal discovery due the 
government within 14 days of receiving the materials and the filing and serving of [Standard 
Discovery Request] responses.”  The Government served the Defendants with supplemental 
discovery materials as recently as June 30, 2025 (Documents 301 & 302).  The deadline to provide 
reciprocal discovery has not yet passed, and the Defendants still have an opportunity to disclose 
evidence.  However, during trial, any previously undisclosed documentary or physical evidence 
will be excluded.  Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(C).  The Government need not point to any specific 
undisclosed evidence, nor can it without being privy to the Defendants’ planned case in chief, for 
its motion to be considered.  The Court finds that the motion in limine should be granted. 
CONCLUSION 
Wherefore, after careful consideration, the Court ORDERS that the Government’s Motion 
in Limine to Preclude Arguments and Evidence Advocating Jury Nullification (Document 270) 
and the Government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Defense Evidence (Document 
271) be GRANTED as specified herein. 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 305     Filed 07/01/25     Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1555

5 
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the Defendants and their 
respective counsel, to the United States Attorney, to the United States Probation Office, and to the 
Office of the United States Marshal. 
ENTER: 
July 1, 2025 
 
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 305     Filed 07/01/25     Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1556

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.305.0.pdf

Size

200,225 bytes

SHA-256

86d69d9ee48fd87b8db1e1ccb3b085bc5610d855f65f198578b73e31a8a5c9f8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.305.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com