Defendant’s Second Motion in Limine — United States v. Buoi (Dkt. 150, D. Mass.)

Summary

In this motion filed February 19, 2022 in United States v. Elijah Majak Buoi (Criminal No. 20-cr-10130-FDS, D. Mass.), the defense asks the court to bar the government from mentioning Mr. Buoi's application for and collection of unemployment benefits in 2019 and 2020. The government disclosed in a letter dated January 14, 2022 and its trial brief that it would offer that evidence as intrinsic to the indictment. The motion argues the evidence is irrelevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, is propensity evidence barred by Rule 404(a), fits no permitted use under Rule 404(b) and fails the Rule 403 balancing test. It contrasts PPP applications made to private lenders with unemployment claims made to the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance, and says testimony from Andrew Devney of the DUA would turn into a trial within a trial on state law. Bryan Owens signed it.

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 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 150 Filed 02/19/22 Page 1 of 5




                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      v.
                                                Criminal No. 20-cr-10130-FDS
ELIJAH MAJAK BUOI


                 DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE

COMES NOW Defendant in this cause and files this his Second Motion in Limine

seeking an order prohibiting the government and its witnesses from directly or

indirectly mentioning, referring to, interrogating concerning, or attempting to convey

to the jury in any manner any of the facts or allegations indicated below.


                                 I.     Introduction

      In a disclosure letter to counsel dated January 14, 2022 and in the

government’s trial brief, the government disclosed its intent to introduce evidence

intrinsic to the indictment. The evidence is, inter alia, as follows:


      1. Defendant’s application for and collection of unemployment
         benefits in 2019 and 2020.

      The defense seeks an order, in limine, excluding all of this evidence for the

following reasons.


      1. The evidence is irrelevant pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence
         401 and 402;
      2. The evidence is inadmissible propensity evidence in violation of
         Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a);

          Case 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 150 Filed 02/19/22 Page 2 of 5




         3. The evidence is not admissible for any of the permitted uses of
            Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); and
         4. The evidence’s probative value is substantially outweighed by the
            danger of misleading the jury to base their decision on an improper
            basis, as well as confusing the issues and needlessly wasting the
            court’s time pursuant to the Federal Rule of Evidence 403
            balancing test.

   II.        Defendant’s application     for   and          collection     of
              unemployment benefits in 2019 and 2020.

         The government seeks to introduce documentary evidence and elicit testimony

that the defendant applied for and collected unemployment benefits from the

Massachusetts DUA in 2019 and 2020.


         A.     The Evidence is not Admissible as Intrinsic Evidence and is
                Inadmissible under any Rule 404(b) Theory of Admissibility

         Evidence of other acts that are “intrinsic to the crime for which the defendant

is on trial” are admissible without regard for the requirements of Federal Rule of

Evidence 404(b). United States v. Epstein, 426 F.3d 431, 439 (1st Cir. 2005). The

government claims Mr. Buoi’s receipt of unemployment benefits “provide necessary

context for the defendant’s offenses.” The government further claims that Mr. Buoi’s

failure to list Sosuda on the unemployment application is “further evidence of his

fraud.”

         It is hard to fathom how Mr. Buoi’s receipt of unemployment benefits “provide

further context” for his alleged fraud. There is no connection whatsoever. An alleged

fraud concerning state-administered unemployment benefits involves an entirely

difference structure than the alleged frauds for which Mr. Buoi is on trial. Consider

the distinctions: PPP applications are to a private entity (private lenders),

        Case 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 150 Filed 02/19/22 Page 3 of 5




unemployment applications are made to a government agency (the Massachusetts

Department of Unemployment Assistance); PPP loans are for the purpose of

sustaining an applicant’s business interests and payroll, unemployment assistance

provides financial benefit for a person who is unable to maintain gainful employment;

a fraudulent PPP application victimizes private lenders, a fraudulent unemployment

claim victimizes a state agency.

      The evidence of Mr. Buoi’s alleged unemployment fraud is not intrinsic

evidence of PPP fraud. The evidence does not qualify for admission pursuant to any

of the permitted admissibility theories of Rule 404(b). "Rule 404(b), by its very terms,

excludes only extrinsic evidence -- evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts -- whose

probative value exclusively depends upon a forbidden inference of criminal

propensity.” United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 218 (1st Cir. 1996) (internal

citation and quotation marks omitted).


      B.     The Evidence of Alleged Unemployment Fraud Should be
             Excluded because its Probative Value is Substantially
             Outweighed by a Danger of One or More of the Following: Unfair
             Prejudice, confusing the Issues, Misleading the Jury, undue
             Delay, Wasting Time or needlessly Presenting Cumulative
             Evidence

      The government intends to present testimony of Andrew Devney of the

Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (“DUA”) to support the

claim that Mr. Buoi fraudulently received unemployment assistance. The

government listed on its exhibit list Mr. Buoi’s unemployment applications for 2019

and 2020 as well as the schedule of payments made to him. But the government will

          Case 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 150 Filed 02/19/22 Page 4 of 5




not introduce any exhibits of alleged fraud. The DUA has not notified Mr. Buoi of any

investigation into his unemployment benefits. There have been no formal

notifications that Mr. Buoi improperly received benefits. There are no pending

criminal charges related to Mr. Buoi’s unemployment compensation.

         The defense intends to vehemently challenge any assertion that Mr. Buoi’s

DUA application and benefits were improperly received or fraudulent. This will

involve application and analysis of Code of Massachusetts Regulations Title 430;

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151A; and regulations of the DUA. This will

turn into a trial within a trial involving the application of state law.

         The government will rely upon Mr. Devney to determine that Mr. Buoi’s

unemployment applications were fraudulent. This denies Mr. Buoi his due process

rights. An investigation into whether unemployment benefits were fraudulently

obtained is a formal and hearing-based process during which applicants are afforded

the right to be heard. Here, this violates Mr. Buoi’s 5th Amendment rights and will

put him in the position of acquiescing to the accusation or waiving his 5th Amendment

right.

         Finally, the determination that an applicant has fraudulently received

unemployment compensation occurs through a full investigation by the DUA and/or

a criminal proceeding. Here, the government intends to show that Mr. Buoi

fraudulently received unemployment compensation through the opinion testimony of

one DUA employee.

        Case 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 150 Filed 02/19/22 Page 5 of 5




      The defense respectfully requests the Court exclude this evidence. Its

introduction will involve a trial within a trial involving the analysis of state law and

will force Mr. Buoi to testify to defend himself. The government provides no evidence

whatsoever that Mr. Boui’s fraudulently received unemployment compensation.

      This line of inquiry will confuse the issues, waste the court’s time, and devolve

into an ongoing mini trial on an entirely collateral issue.



WHEREFORE, the defense respectfully requests that the Court exclude any and

all evidence concerning Mr. Buoi’s application of and receipt of unemployment

benefits.


                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                        /s/ Bryan Owens
                                        Bryan Owens
                                        405 Main St., Ste 700
                                        Houston, TX 77002
                                        Bryan@owenscriminaldefense.com


                                Certificate of Service
       I, Bryan Owens, hereby certify that this document was this day filed through
the ECF system and will be sent electronically to the registered participants as
identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”).


Date: February 19, 2022                               /s/ Bryan Owens
                                                      Bryan Owens

File and source

File

150.pdf

Size

121,095 bytes

SHA-256

52179aac7f35fd3cbe60abc48493533428143eb0badd0814874375f95837c7be

Our copy

150.pdf