Full text
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 242 Filed 09/19/23 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
vs. ) No. CR422-016
)
SHAQUANDRA WOODS, )
)
Defendant. )
MOTION IN LIMINE
Defendant Shaquandra Woods files this motion in limine with
respect to statements of a party-opponent, namely statements made by,
or with the express approval of, the administrator of the Small Business
Administration (“SBA”).
BACKGROUND
The second superseding indictment charges Woods with one count
of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1349; four
counts of making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims in violation of 18
U.S.C. §287; and two counts of false documents in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§1001(a)(3). (Doc 222) According to the indictment, the counts arise
from fraudulent attempts to obtain SBA loans directed toward COVID-
19 relief during the period of May 2020 to May 2021. (Doc 222-Pgs 1-3)
1
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 242 Filed 09/19/23 Page 2 of 7
The Court’s Amended Criminal Trial Management Order invites
briefing on “[c]omplex trial issues, including substantial evidentiary
questions” and “complex debates regarding the exclusion or admission
of evidence” in a motion in limine. (Doc 219-Pg 4) To that end, Woods
provides this briefing on the hearsay exception for an opposing party’s
statement. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). The party-opponent rule is one
frequently employed by the government against defendants – less so by
a defendant against the government. To that end, Woods provides this
briefing and gives an example of when the party-opponent exception
may arise.
During the time period referred to the indictment, the SBA Office
of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued Report Number 21-02, dated
October 28, 2020, called “Inspection of [SBA’s] Initial Disaster
Assistance Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic.” (Doc 133-12) The
SBA responded to this report through Jovita Carranza, its then-
administrator. (Doc 133-12 at 47-77) Carranza attached a memorandum
from James Rivera, the SBA’s associate administrator (Office of
Disaster Assistance), for the OIG’s consideration. (Doc 133-12 at 48-77)
That memorandum discusses, inter alia, why there may be legitimate
2
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 242 Filed 09/19/23 Page 3 of 7
reasons for applications reflect shared IP addresses (Id. at 56-59) and
why there may be legitimate reasons for delaying formal business
formation – i.e., “why a business in operation on or before January 31,
2020, might register an EIN after that date.” (Id. at 59-62)
The government has given notice that it intends to call Alfonso E.
Olivas, an SBA Supervisory Loan Specialist, as an expert witness. (Doc
164, Doc 238) In the written disclosure made to counsel, Olivas
represents that as to four particular loans, he will offer expert opinions
– including opinions on the ultimate issue – that encompass things like
“document submissions to the SBA” and “dates of operation of the
business.” The SBA, via Administrator Carranza and Deputy
Administrator Rivera’s letter and memorandum, has addressed these
same issues, and statements made by the SBA’s representatives should
be admissible.
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
Rule 801(d)(2) excepts an opposing party’s statement from the
hearsay rules if
The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative
capacity;
3
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 242 Filed 09/19/23 Page 4 of 7
(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be
true;
(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a
statement on the subject;
(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on the matter
within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or
(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish
the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the
relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or
participation in it under (E).
The federal government is the party-opponent of the defendant in
criminal cases. United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118, 130 (1st Cir.
1988)(observing that Department of Justice “certainly should be
considered as such”), citing United States v. Morgan, 581 F.2d 933, 937
& n. 10 (D.C. Cir. 1978). In an antitrust action, a district court
construed the United States, via its executive branch offices, as the
plaintiff – not just the Department of Justice. United States v. Am. Tel.
& Tel. Co., 498 F. Supp. 353, 357-358 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Similarly, in a medical malpractice action brought under the
FTCA, the Seventh Circuit allowed the admission of statements by the
4
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 242 Filed 09/19/23 Page 5 of 7
Secretary of Veterans Affairs under this rule. Murrey v. United States,
73 F.3d 1448, 1455 (7th Cir. 1996). There, the Secretary (Edward
Derwinski) directed the VA’s OIG to investigate the veteran’s hospital
where Murrey died. Id. The OIG criticized that care. Id. “Several days
after receiving the report, Derwinski publicly announced that poor care
had contributed to the deaths of six patients at the hospital between
June 1989 and March 1990, including Murrey,” and the department’s
lawyers told Murrey’s widow “that his death had been ‘caused by a
medical misadventure’” and suggested she file an FTCA claim. Id. The
Seventh Circuit found that the district court erred when it excluded
these admissions, which were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2). Id.
Not “every publication of every branch of government can be
treated as a party admission by the United States” under Rule
801(d)(2). United States v. Van Griffin, 874 F.2d 634, 638 (9th Cir. 1989).
But a pamphlet on sobriety testing formulated by “the government
department charged with the development or rules for highway safety
was the relevant and competent section of the government” could have
been introduced by a defendant under this rule “as part of his defense in
5
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 242 Filed 09/19/23 Page 6 of 7
order to show the measures that are necessary to be taken in order to
have a reliable test for nystagmus.” Id.
As an executive branch agency, SBA is a party opponent. In the
example in the background recitation, the administrator of the SBA
undoubtedly could speak for the SBA about its administration of SBA
loans under Rule 801(d)(2). The highlighted statements from the letter
and memorandum are relevant: The government’s expert intends to
address them. Thus, these statements are admissible.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of September, 2023.
/s/ Amy Lee Copeland
Amy Lee Copeland
Georgia Bar No. 186730
Attorney for Shaquandra Woods
602 Montgomery Street
Savannah, Georgia 31401
912-807-5000
ALC@roco.pro
6
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 242 Filed 09/19/23 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I served a copy of this motion by filing it on the Court’s CM/ECF
portal, which generates a link to a file stamped .pdf copy of this motion
to all counsel of record in this case.
This 19th day of September, 2023.
/s/ Amy Lee Copeland
Amy Lee Copeland
Georgia Bar No. 186730
Attorney for Shaquandra Woods
7