Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant Woods' Self-Authenticating Records — United States v. Woods et al.

Summary

The United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant Woods' Self-Authenticating Records, Document 177, filed March 23, 2023, in United States v. Shaquandra Woods, Courtney Gilchrist, and Kenneth Jackson, Case No. 4:22-CR-016, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division. The government states that Woods noticed seventeen exhibits as self-authenticating under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and that thirteen should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because their probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues or misleading the jury. It also states that one noticed exhibit, the SBA's internal notes, is incomplete and should be offered in full under Rule 106.

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

Cite this document

“Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant Woods' Self-Authenticating Records — United States v. Woods et al.” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-s-d-ga-no-4-22-cr-00016-dkt-177-25eed84848/, SHA-256 afbee4e5945a4797490f471a15ffd5a683c9cb906c101e291cef1218e11b0925.

Full text

Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) CASE NO: 4:22-CR-016
)
SHAQUANDRA WOODS, )
COURTNEY GILCHRIST, and )
KENNETH JACKSON )

UNITED STATES’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
DEFENDANT WOODS’ SELF-AUTHENTICATING RECORDS

The United States moves in limine to exclude documents noticed by Defendant

Shaquandra Woods as self-authenticating under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence. See (Doc. 171–171-17.) Thirteen of Woods’ noticed exhibits should be

excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because their probative value is

substantially outweighed by a danger that they will confuse the issues or mislead the

jury. Additionally, one of Woods’ noticed exhibits is incomplete and should be offered

in full under Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

BACKGROUND

On February 2, 2022, the grand jury in the Southern District of Georgia

returned an indictment (Doc. 1) charging defendants with conspiring to commit wire

fraud and other offenses relating to a series of fake businesses that defendants used

to obtain federal funds intended for legitimate small business during the COVID-19

pandemic. On June 9, 2022, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment (Doc.

87) charging defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, making false claims,

using false documents, and making false statements.
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 10

The Superseding Indictment alleges that Defendant Woods applied for

Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDLs”) under false and fraudulent pretenses,

including by making false statements about claimed businesses’ dates of

establishment and gross revenues for the twelve-month period prior to the date of the

COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc., 87, ¶ 19.) The Superseding Indictment further alleges

that, as part of the conspiracy and to influence the United States Small Business

Administration (“SBA”) to approve the fraudulent EIDLs that she submitted,

Defendant Woods sent the SBA fake tax documents and fake corporate records.

(Id. ¶¶ 20c, 20f, 20h, 20i, 28, 30.)

On March 10, 2023, Defendant Woods filed her Notice of Intent to Offer Self-

Authenticating Records Pursuant to F.R.E. 902 (the “Notice”). (Doc. 171.) Woods

contends that the records she submitted are admissible under Rule 902(5) of the

Federal Rules of Evidence because they are self-authenticating as a publication by a

public authority. (Doc. 171 at 1-2.) Seventeen exhibits were attached to the Notice.

(Doc. 171-1–171-17.) Those exhibits include: legislation of the Coronavirus Aid,

Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, 106th Cong. § 1110 (2020) (Woods Ex.

2, 1 Doc. 171-1); five selections from the Federal Register regarding the Economic

Injury Disaster Loan program (Woods Ex. 3, 2 Doc. 171-2); Frequently Asked

1 Woods filed seventeen total exhibits bearing numbers with gaps in the sequence.

See generally (Doc. 171). That numbering has been replicated here.
2 Express Bridge Loan Pilot Program; Modification of Eligibility and Loan Approval

Deadline and Extension of Pilot Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 18107 (Apr. 1, 2020)
(included twice); Disaster Declarations of Economic Injury for the Coronavirus
(COVID-19); Administrative Declarations of Economic Injury Disasters for the
Entire United States and U.S. Territories, 85 Fed. Reg. 20015 (Apr. 9, 2020);
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 3 of 10

Questions from the SBA’s website regarding the EIDL program, dated March 20,

2020 (Woods Ex. 4, Doc. 171-3); another list of Frequently Asked Questions from the

SBA’s website, dated March 27, 2020, regarding the EIDL program (Woods Ex. 5,

Doc. 171-4); another list of Frequently Asked Questions regarding the EIDL program

from the SBA website, dated September 8, 2020 (Woods Ex. 6, Doc. 171-5); a list of

Frequently Asked Questions regarding the EIDL program from the SBA’s website,

dated August 4, 2021 (Woods Ex. 7, Doc. 171-6); the Intake Application Summary for

the EIDL application ending in -6118 for EZ Legal Solutions LLC (Woods Ex. 9, Doc.

171-7); what appears to be a download from the SBA’s website for various forms from

the EIDL program (Woods Ex. 10, Doc. 171-8); Articles of Organization for EZ Legal

Solutions, LLC (Woods Ex. 11, Doc. 171-9); a report of the U.S. Small Business

Administration Office of Inspector General, Inspection of Small Business

Administration’s Initial Disaster Assistance Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic,

dated October 28, 2020 (Woods Ex. 12, Doc. 171-10); a report of the U.S. Small

Business Administration Office of Inspector General, Top Management and

Performance Challenges Facing the Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year

2022, dated October 15, 2021 (Woods Ex. 13, Doc. 171-11); a report of the U.S. Small

Business Administration Office of Inspector General, Top Management and

Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program, 85 Fed.
Reg. 20811 (Apr. 15, 2020); Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck
Protection Program—Additional Eligibility Criteria and Requirements for Certain
Pledges of Loans, 85 Fed. Reg. 21747 (Apr. 20, 2020); Data Collection Available for
Public Comments, 85 Fed. Reg. 42063 (July 13, 2020); Data Collection Available for
Public Comments, 85 Fed. Reg. 42479 (July 14, 2020).
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 4 of 10

Performance Challenges Facing the Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year

2021, dated October 16, 2020 (Woods Ex. 14, Doc. 171-12); Experian Credit Report of

Shaquandra Woods, dated Mary 12, 2020 (Woods Ex. 15, Doc. 171-13); Official Form

207, Statement of Financial Affairs for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy (Woods

Ex. 16, Doc. 171-14); the text of 15 U.S.C. § 9009 (Woods Ex. 17, Doc. 171-15); the

SBA’s internal notes regarding the EIDL loan ending in -8102 (bearing an identifier

ending in -4947 and corresponding to the EIDL Application ending in -6118) issued

to EZ Legal Solutions (Woods Ex. 19, Doc. 171-16); and a publication from the IRS

website dated June 29, 2020, Taxpayers should file by July 15 tax deadline; automatic

extension to Oct. 15 available, (Woods, Ex. 20, Doc. 171-17). Woods previously filed all

of the noticed exhibits in connection with her Amended Motion to Dismiss for

Fundamental Ambiguity (Doc. 133, 133-2–133-7, 133-9–133-15, 133-17, 133-19, 133-

20), to which she filed no objection to the recommendation that the Amended Motion

be Denied, (Doc. 144 at 30–33).

ARGUMENT

A. Defendant Woods’ Exhibits Should Be Excluded Because Their
Probative Value is Substantially Outweighed by a Danger of
Confusing the Issues and Misleading the Jury

Woods attaches seventeen different documents purporting to be self-

authenticating as publications issued by a public authority under Rule 902(5) of the

Federal Rules of Evidence. Of Woods’ noticed exhibits, thirteen should be excluded

under Rule 403 because their probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger

of confusing the issues and misleading the jury.

First, Woods suggests that the Government has consented to the admission of
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 5 of 10

these documents at trial because they were “previously presented to the government

and were admitted in the motion hearings without objection.” (Doc. 171 at 1.) That

the Government did not object to the Court considering these documents in

connection with Woods’ various pre-trial motions does not mean that the Government

consented to their admission as evidence during a trial of the case on the merits. It

does not, and the Government outlines its objections here.

Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, otherwise admissible

evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a

danger of . . . confusing the issues [and] misleading the jury.” Here, thirteen of

Woods’ noticed exhibits have little probative value. These thirteen documents fall into

three general categories.

• First, Woods has noticed various statutes and regulations. Woods

notices legislation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security

Act, H.R. 748, 106th Cong. § 1110 (2020) (Woods Ex. 2, Doc. 171-1); and

five selections from the Federal Register containing regulations

regarding the SBA and EIDL program (Woods Ex. 3, Doc. 171-2); and

the text of 15 U.S.C. § 9009 (Woods Ex. 17, Doc. 171-15) (collectively, the

“Statutes and Regulations”).

• Second, Woods has noticed eight documents published by the SBA

regarding the EIDL program. These documents include frequently

asked questions from the SBA’s website, (Woods Ex. 4, Doc. 171-3);

(Woods Ex. 5, Doc. 171-4); (Woods Ex. 6, Doc. 171-5); (Woods Ex. 7, Doc.
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 6 of 10

171-6); three different reports from the SBA Office of Inspector General,

(Woods Ex. 12, Doc. 171-10); (Woods Ex. 12, Doc. 171-11); (Woods Ex.

14, Doc. 171-12); and copies of EIDL application documents available for

download through the SBA website. (Woods Ex. 10, Doc. 171-8)

(collectively, the “SBA Publications”).

• Finally, Woods has noticed two documents that have nothing to do with

the SBA or EIDL program at all. These two documents are Official Form

207, Statement of Financial Affairs for Non-Individuals Filing for

Bankruptcy (Woods Ex. 16, Doc. 171-14), and a publication purportedly

from the IRS website regarding a tax-filing extension in 2020 (Woods

Ex. 20, Doc. 171-17) (collectively, the “Non-EIDL Documents”).

Collectively, the Statutes and Regulations, the SBA Publications, and the Non-EIDL

Documents are of limited probative value regarding the questions that will be before

the jury. No document noticed by Woods states that it was proper for Woods to

misrepresent gross revenue or the dates of establishment for her business. No

document states that fake tax documents or fake corporate records were appropriate

supporting documentation for an EIDL application. That is the conduct charged in

the Superseding Indictment, and the question whether she committed those acts is

the one the jury will need to decide.

Compared to their limited probative value, these thirteen documents are likely

to confuse the issues and mislead the jury. The Statues and Regulations are likely to

confuse and mislead the jury regarding their role. The jury’s responsibility is to find
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 7 of 10

the facts, and the Court will instruct the jury regarding the law. Introducing the

Statutes and Regulations to the jury is likely to confuse the jury and mislead its

members into believing it has a role in determining the law. See United States v.

Griffith, Criminal Case No. 13-20894, 2015 WL 471426, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4,

2015) (“To admit a statute into evidence as an exhibit . . . would thrust the jury into

a quasi-judicial role and confuse them as to their fact-finding function.”).

Furthermore, the SBA Publications and the Non-EIDL Documents will confuse the

issues before the jury. Woods has previously argued the SBA Publications and the

Non-EIDL Documents show that the SBA’s application was fundamentally

ambiguous. See generally (Doc. 133). Woods, in effect, intends to put the SBA’s

administration of the EIDL program on trial. However, whether the SBA effectively

administered the EIDL program, or whether it could have more clearly drafted its

application is not the issue in this case. Nor is the administrative environment or the

IRS’s administration of tax-filing in 2020. Submission of the SBA Publications and

the Non-EIDL Documents will overwhelm the jury and sow confusion about what

questions are properly before it.

At bottom, Woods has noticed a jumble of documents with limited probative

value into the central questions of the case. Because the probative value of the

Statutes and Regulations, the SBA Publications, and the Non-EIDL Documents is

substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury,

the Court should exclude them whether authentic or not.
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 8 of 10

B. One of Woods’ Noticed Exhibits is Incomplete as Filed and Should be
Offered in Full Under Rule 106

Woods noticed as self-authenticating the SBA’s internal notes regarding the

EIDL ending in -8102 (bearing an identifier ending in -4947 and corresponding to the

EIDL application ending in -6118) issued to EZ Legal Solutions, (Woods Ex. 19, Doc.

171-16). The Government previously noticed that it would introduce self-

authenticating loan records from the SBA for the EIDL application ending in -6118.

See (Doc. 68, 68-18). However, the version filed by Woods is incomplete, with the first

page of Woods’ exhibit appearing to be subject to some sort of scanner or printer error.

See generally (Woods Ex. 19 at 1, Doc. 171-16). While the Government does not object

to the SBA’s notes regarding application -6118 being offered as authentic under Rule

902, pursuant to Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to the extent Woods

intends to offer them, the notes should be offered in full. 3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should exclude the Statutes and

Regulations, the SBA Publications, and the Non-EIDL Documents attached to

Defendant Woods’ Notice. Additionally, to the extent that Woods intends to offer the

SBA’s internal notes for the EIDL application ending in -6118, the notes should be

offered in full.

3 Of course, conceding that an item is authentic does not concede its admissibility.

The government reserves the right to object to items offered at trial on bases other
than those set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 902.
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 9 of 10

Respectfully submitted, this 23rd day of March 2023.

JILL E. STEINBERG
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Jennifer G. Solari
Jennifer G. Solari
Assistant United States Attorney
Senior Litigation Counsel

/s/ Ryan C. Grover
Ryan C. Grover
Assistant United States Attorney
South Carolina Bar No. 101218

22 Barnard Street, Suite 300
Savannah, Georgia 31412
Telephone: (912) 652-4422
Facsimile: (912) 652-4991
Email: jennifer.solari@usdoj.gov
Email: ryan.grover@usdoj.gov
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 177 Filed 03/23/23 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have on this day served all the parties in this case in

accordance with the notice of electronic filing (ANEF@) which was generated as a result

of electronic filing in this Court.

This 23rd day of March 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

JILL E. STEINBERG
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Ryan C. Grover
Ryan C. Grover
Assistant United States Attorney

File and source

File: 177.pdf
Size: 200,984 bytes
SHA-256: afbee4e5945a4797490f471a15ffd5a683c9cb906c101e291cef1218e11b0925
Our copy: 177.pdf
Original: No public link identified.