Full text
Case 3:20-cr-00052-BAJ-RLB Document 140 08/20/21 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS
NO.20-00052-BAJ-RLB
ELLIOT STERLING
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the United States’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence, Questioning, and Argument Related to Alton Sterling and the
Department of Justice (Doc. 105). The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 117). For the
reasons provided, the Government’s Motion is GRANTED.
On August 3, 2020, the Federal Grand Jury returned a fourteen-count
Indictment against Defendant Elliot Sterling alleging violations of wire fraud,
financial aid fraud, and money laundering. See (Doc. 1). On March 16, 2021, the Court
granted Defendant’s Motion to Proceed Pro Se (Doc. 28), and later appointed stand-by
counsel. (Doc. 39, Doc. 42).
Defendant has alleged on numerous occaisions, both in Court and in related
motions, that the Government targeted him for prosecution because he publicly spoke
out against the United States Department of Justice following its investigation into
the death of Alton Sterling, Defendant’s cousin. (Doc. 37, p. 3); (Doc. 117, p. 2);
(Doc. 105, p. 2–5). The United States requests that the Court enter an order
precluding Defendant “from making statements and argument, asking questions, or
introducing evidence at trial specifically related to unsubstantiated allegations about
1
Case 3:20-cr-00052-BAJ-RLB Document 140 08/20/21 Page 2 of 4
Alton Sterling, the Department of Justice and the defendant’s theory that he was
targeted for prosecution,” on four bases. First, according to the Government, the
argument is “without legal or factual basis.” (Doc. 105, p. 1). Second, that the
argument is irrelevant. (Id. at p. 2). Third, that the argument is “unduly prejudicial
to the government’s case and confusing to the jury.” (Id.). Fourth, that the argument
is “an impermissible attempt to encourage jury nullification.” (Id.).
The critical question is whether such evidence is relevant to the case.
“Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in
determining the action.” FED. R. EVID. 401. Defendant has been charged with three
categories of offenses: wire fraud, money laundering, and financial aid fraud. See
(Doc. 1). Therefore, the Government must prove at trial that Defendant, on nine
separate instances between December 2017 and September 2018, “caused an
interstate wire communication to be transmitted . . . in connection with the
submission of a FAFSA 1, which contained false material information.” (Doc. 1,
p. 17–18). The Government must also prove that Defendant fraudulently obtained
federal funds in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a). See United States v. Strain,
78 F. App’x 975, 976 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curium). Finally, the Government must
establish that Defendant derived more than $10,000 from a specified unlawful
activity (in this case, wire fraud), subsequently engaged in a financial transaction
with this property, and knew the property was derived from unlawful activity. See
1 Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
2
Case 3:20-cr-00052-BAJ-RLB Document 140 08/20/21 Page 3 of 4
United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 602 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
“[T]he burden is on the introducing party to establish relevancy.” Downling v.
United States, 493 U.S. 342, 351 n. 3 (1990). Defendant argues that he will “simply . . .
talk about myself speaking out against the department of justice on all major outlets,”
but he has not provided any legal or factual support for why that testimony makes
any fact more or less likely as it relates to the charges for wire fraud, financial aid
fraud, or money laundering. (Doc. 117, p. 2). “The accused does not have an unfettered
right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible
under standard rules of evidence.” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410 (1988).
Testimony relating to Alton Sterling and the United States Department of Justice’s
investigation into his death are not relevant to Defendant’s underlying charges. See
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996) (“A selective-prosecution claim
is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent
assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the
Constitution.”).
Accordingly,
3
Case 3:20-cr-00052-BAJ-RLB Document 140 08/20/21 Page 4 of 4
IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion (Doc. 105) is GRANTED.
Defendant shall not ask questions, introduce extrinsic evidence, or make statements
or arguments at trial related to Alton Sterling and the Department of Justice
investigation related to his death.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 19th day of August, 2021
_____________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
4