Order — United States v. Alexander Alli (Middle District of Florida, Document 111, filed March 11, 2024)

Summary

An Order filed March 11, 2024 as Document 111 in United States v. Alexander Alli, Case No. 8:23-cr-24-CEH-SPF, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, memorializing an oral ruling of March 8, 2024. It addresses the Government's motion in limine to exclude the defendant's exculpatory statements during interview (Doc. 69) and the defendant's response in opposition (Doc. 74). The Order states that the defendant was charged in a Superseding Indictment with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud based on an Economic Injury Disaster Loan and an advance from the Small Business Administration of $2,000. The Court granted the motion to the extent that the defendant's statements highlighted orange in the sealed transcript would be excluded as inadmissible hearsay.

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

Full text

Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 111 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 704




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                              TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.                                                CASE NO: 8:23-cr-24-CEH-SPF

ALEXANDER ALLI


                                         ORDER

       This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s motion in limine to

Exclude Defendant’s Exculpatory Statements During Interview (Doc. 69) and

Defendant’s response in opposition (Doc. 74). The Court heard argument on these

motions on February 7, 2024, directed the Parties to submit transcripts specifying the

relevant portions of the interview, and ultimately issued an oral ruling on March 8,

2024. See Doc. 108. This Order serves to memorialize the Court’s oral

pronouncements.

                                      DISCUSSION

       In a Superseding Indictment, Defendant was charged with one count of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and two counts of

wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, based on an Economic Injury Disaster

Loan and a $2,000 advance from the Small Business Administration that he applied

for and obtained on behalf of his purported business. See Doc. 46.

       “A Motion In Limine presents a pretrial issue of admissibility of evidence that is

likely to arise at trial, and as such, the order, like any other interlocutory order, remains
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 111 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 705




subject to reconsideration by the court throughout the trial.” Stewart v. Hooters of Am.,

Inc., No. 8:04-CV-40-EAK-MAP, 2007 WL 1752843, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2007)

(citation omitted). “The real purpose of a Motion In Limine is to give the trial judge

notice of the movant’s position so as to avoid the introduction of damaging evidence

which may irretrievably effect the fairness of the trial. A court has the power to exclude

evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.”

Id. (quoting Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984) (federal district courts have

authority to make in limine rulings pursuant to their authority to manage trials)).

      Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at

the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and

is generally not admissible. United States v. Fernandez, 392 Fed. Appx. 743, 746 (11th

Cir. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802). Furthermore, under the Federal Rules of

Evidence, a defendant cannot elicit the defendant’s own exculpatory hearsay

statements through cross-examination. See United States v. Willis, 759 F.2d 1486 (11th

Cir. 1985).

      The Government seeks to exclude from trial evidence of Defendant’s

exculpatory statements from two interviews with Government agents. See Doc. 69 at

1. As context, the Government seeks to introduce, through a federal law enforcement

agent, various admissions and inculpatory statements that Defendant made during

these two separate recorded consensual interviews. Id. The Government indicated that

its motion was filed out of concern that the defense would attempt to introduce




                                            2
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 111 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 706




through recordings or cross-examination Defendant’s own self-serving hearsay and

exculpatory statements from the remainder of the interview. Id.

       Defendant responds that the contents of the entire interview are relevant to the

allegations against him and his defense. Doc. 74. Therefore, he argues that under Fed.

R. Evid. 106, the rest of the interview should be introduced as well because it explains

his actions and the involvement of an uncharged co-conspirator. Id. at 1–4.

       At a February 7, 2024, hearing on this motion (see Doc. 82), the Court heard

initial argument on this motion and directed the Parties to file the annotated transcript

with the Court, which they did. Subsequently, at a March 8, 2024, status conference,

the Court ruled as follows. The Government’s motion was granted to the extent that

Defendant’s statements (highlighted orange in the sealed transcript as they would

potentially be introduced at trial), would be excluded as inadmissible hearsay. As to

several other portions of the transcript, the Court indicated that certain questions from

the interview should also be included for the sake of clarity, instead of beginning an

excerpt with an answer. Issues as to the anticipatory objections, highlighted in red in

the sealed transcript (Doc. 92), will be resolved at trial.

       DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 11, 2024.


                                      ~ o- ~ ~~,wJ.2, ~
                                       Charlene Edwards Honeywell            1
                                       United States District Judge


Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record




                                             3


File and source

File

111.pdf

Size

91,307 bytes

SHA-256

e4d1bc103e68b38569e2a8bc537c1fe86eec6483a3a260e53788f21a1557a398

Our copy

111.pdf

Original

archive.org