Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Tracy D. Wade Information — United States v. Tracy D. Wade (Dkt. 127, S.D. Fla. No. 0:23-cr-60173)

Court filing

Information — United States v. Tracy D. Wade (Dkt. 127, S.D. Fla. No. 0:23-cr-60173)

Filed August 19, 2024 in United States v. Tracy D. Wade; one of 133 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed2024-08-19

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 127 · 2024-08-19 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 23-60173-CR-KMW(s) (GRAHAM) 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
 
 
 
vs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CAROLYN DENISE WADE and 
TRACY D. WADE, 
 
 
 
       Defendants. 
                                    / 
 
UNOPPOSED MOTION IN LIMINE BY THE UNITED STATES 
 
Introduction 
 
 
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, in advance of the 
jury trial as to Defendants Carolyn Denise Wade and Tracy D. Wade (“Defendants”), set to 
commence on October 7, 2024, hereby moves the Court in limine, and without objection from 
Defendants, as follows: 
1. 
The United States renews its First Motion in Limine, filed on April 2, 2024 (ECF 
No. 35) (the “First Motion in Limine”), as to both Defendants.  On May 9, 2024, 
the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 58) granting the First Motion in Limine, 
which Order required Defendant Carolyn Wade to first notify the Court should she 
wish to refer to or seek to admit any evidence relating to the issues raised in the 
motion, which were: 1) jury nullification; 2) profits by the victims; and 3) 
negligence of lenders.  This renewed motion seeks an Order applying the Court’s 
prior ruling to both Defendants. 
2. 
The United States moves to preclude the parties from mentioning, referencing, or 
otherwise suggesting in any way to the jury that this case was previously tried, 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 127   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2024   Page 1 of 5

2 
 
including the preclusion of any reference to the following in the presence of the 
jury: a “first trial”; a “prior trial,” a “mistrial,” or a “hung jury.”  Any reference to 
a witness’s prior testimony in this case shall be referred to as testimony in another 
“proceeding” without mentioning that the “proceeding” was an earlier trial of this 
case. 
Undersigned counsel for the government and counsel for the Defendants have conferred 
regarding this Motion, and the parties are in agreement as to the relief sought herein. 
Procedural History 
On September 14, 2023, a grand jury sitting in the Fort Lauderdale Division of this Court 
(the “Grand Jury”) returned an indictment (ECF No. 3) (the “Indictment”) charging Defendant 
Carolyn Wade with one count of wire fraud, in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Section 
1343.  In sum, the Indictment alleged that, from May 2021 through August 2021, Carolyn Wade, 
then employed by the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO) as a Deputy Sherriff in the Detention 
Department, participated in a scheme to defraud in which she obtained a loan through the Small 
Business Administration (SBA)’s Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) based upon materially 
false information.  Such materially false information allegedly included, among other things, that 
a sole proprietorship having the business legal name “Carolyn Wade” earned “$113,560” of gross 
income in 2019.   
Carolyn Wade pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a jury trial.  The trial commenced on 
May 13, 2024, in the Miami Division before Senior United States District Judge Donald L. 
Graham.  The case was submitted to the jury on May 20, 2024.  On May 21, 2024, the Court 
declared a mistrial after the jury advised the Court that it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 127   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2024   Page 2 of 5

3 
 
On June 27, 2024, the Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment (ECF No. 88) (the “S1 
Indictment”).  The S1 Indictment added a new defendant, Tracy Wade (the husband of Carolyn 
Wade), and the following new charges: conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Tile 18, 
United States Code, Section 1349 (as to both Defendants); wire fraud, in violation of Tile 18, 
United States Code, Section 1343 (a new count as to Tracy Wade); conspiracy to make false 
statements to the SBA, in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Section 371 (as to both 
Defendants); and false statements to the SBA, in violation of Title 15, Untied States Code, Section 
645(a) (as to both Defendants).    
With respect to the conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count 1), the S1 Indictment alleged 
that Carolyn Wade and Tracy Wade agreed with each other, with Haydee Rivero, f/k/a Haydee 
Granados (“Granados”), and with others, to obtain PPP loans based upon materially false and 
fraudulent information, including false and fictitious tax documents.  The substantive wire fraud 
counts charged Tracy Wade with causing his own fraudulent PPP loan (Count 2) and charged 
Tracy Wade and Carolyn Wade with causing Carolyn Wade’s fraudulent PPP loan (Count 3).  The 
conspiracy to make false statements to the SBA (Count 4) alleged that Carolyn Wade and Tracy 
Wade agreed with each other, with Granados, and with others, to make false statements to the SBA 
in PPP loan applications (using SBA Form 2483-C) and SBA PPP loan forgiveness applications 
(using SBA Form 3508S).  Carolyn Wade and Tracy Wade were each charged individually with 
three counts of making false statements to the SBA in their respective PPP loan applications and 
forgiveness applications (Counts 5, 8, and 9 as to Carolyn Wade and Counts 6, 7, and 10 as to 
Tracy Wade).  
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 127   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2024   Page 3 of 5

4 
 
Renewal of the First Motion in Limine as to Both Defendants 
 
In connection with the first trial, the government filed the First Motion in Limine on April 
2, 2024 (ECF No. 35).  The First Motion in Limine sought to preclude Defendant Carolyn Wade 
from introducing evidence and arguments concerning the following:  
1. 
Any alleged negligence by the victim lenders, their loan processors, or the SBA; 
2. 
Any profit by the above-referenced victims; and 
3. 
Jury nullification, including evidence and argument about the nature of the 
prosecution, use of federal resources, and the Government’s charging decisions. 
 
Defendant Carolyn Wade did not file a response to the First Motion in Limine.  On May 
9, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting the First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 58).  The Order 
required Defendant Carolyn Wade to first notify the Court should she wish to refer to or seek to 
admit any evidence relating to the issues raised in the motion. 
 
The government hereby incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein all the 
facts, arguments, and authorities in First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 35).  For the reasons stated 
therein, the government respectfully asks the Court to grant the relief requested in the First Motion 
in Limine for the forthcoming trial as to both Defendants.  Defendants do not oppose this request.    
Exclusion of References to the First Trial 
 
The United States seeks an Order precluding the parties from mentioning, referencing, or 
otherwise suggesting in any way to the jury that this case was previously tried, including the 
preclusion of any reference to the following in the presence of the jury: a “first trial”; a “prior 
trial,” a “mistrial,” or a “hung jury.”  Any reference to a witness’s prior testimony in this case 
shall be referred to as testimony in another “proceeding” without mentioning that the “proceeding” 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 127   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2024   Page 4 of 5

5 
 
was an earlier trial of this case.  Courts routinely grant such requests.  See, e.g., United States v. 
Hicks, 15-CR-33-A, 2018 WL 1789932, at *2 (granting Government’s motion and citing L. Sand, 
et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal (2016) Instruction 2-13, cmt. (noting that “many 
jurisdictions proscribe any reference to previous trials, using instead references to ‘a prior 
proceeding’”)).  Defendants do not oppose this request.    
Certificate Pursuant to Local Rule 88.9 
 
Pursuant to Local Rule 88.9, on August 15, 2024, undersigned counsel for the government 
emailed attorneys Johnny McCray and Daryl Wilcox, who are jointly counsel of record for 
Defendants, for each Defendant’s respective position on the relief requested herein by the 
government.  On August 16, 2024, Mr. McCray advised by reply email that the defense agrees 
that the evidentiary matters raised in this motion should be precluded from admissibility, and that 
the parties shall not mention, reference, or suggest these matters.  
Conclusion 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully asks the Court to grant the relief 
requested herein. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
    
MARKENZY LAPOINTE 
  
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: /s/ David A. Snider  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David A. Snider 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Court ID No. A5502260 
500 E. Broward Blvd 
Fort Lauderdale, FL  33394 
Tel: (954) 660-5696 
Fax: (954) 356-7336 
Email: david.snider@usdoj.gov 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 127   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2024   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.flsd.670191.127.0.pdf
Size
156,253 bytes
SHA-256
8e9d8680d885845a4db4bcc4a6143a62f8b2f8d4b639eabf6716102ab7535aed
Our copy
gov.uscourts.flsd.670191.127.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top