Full text
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 184 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) CR422-016-1
)
SHAQUANDRA WOODS, )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
Currently before the Court is the Government’s Motion in Limine
to Exclude Defendant Woods’ Self-Authenticating Records. Doc. 177.
Woods did not respond to the motion. See generally docket; see also S.D.
Ga. L. Crim. R. 12.1. The Government’s Motion was filed in response to
Woods’ Notice, in which she notified the Court and counsel of her intent
to offer at trial seventeen exhibits which she contends are self-
authenticating as publications by a public authority under Federal Rule
of Evidence 902(5). See doc. 177 at 1; see also doc. 171 (Woods’ Notice),
docs. 171-1 – 171-17 (Woods’ exhibits).
The Government moves to exclude thirteen of Woods’ exhibits
under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See doc. 177 at 4-7. It groups
1
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 184 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 4
these exhibits into three general categories: “various statutes and
regulations,” 1 or the “Statutes and Regulations” group, “documents
published by the [Small Business Association (“SBA”)] regarding the
[Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDL”)] program,” 2 or the “SBA
Publications” group, and “documents that have nothing to do with the
SBA or EIDL program at all,” 3 or the “Non-EIDL Documents” group.
Id. at 5-6.
Rule 403 allows for the exclusion of relevant evidence if “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.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Government argues the probative
1 This category includes legislation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act, H.R. 748, 116th Cong. § 1110 (2020), doc. 171-1, five selections from the
Federal Register containing regulations regarding the SBA and EIDL program, doc.
171-2, and the text of 15 U.S.C. § 9009, doc. 171-15.
2 This category includes frequently asked questions from the SBA’s website, docs.
171-3, 171-4, 171-5 and 171-6, three reports from the SBA Office of Inspector General,
docs. 171-10, 171-11, and 171-12, and copies of EIDL documents available for
download through the SBA website, doc. 171-8.
3 This final category includes a copy of Official Form 207, Statement of Financial
Affairs for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy, doc. 171-14, and a copy of a
publication from the IRS website regarding a 2020 tax filing extension, doc. 171-17.
2
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 184 Filed 04/26/23 Page 3 of 4
value of the thirteen exhibits is substantially outweighed by a danger
that they will confuse the issues or mislead the jury. Doc. 177 at 6-7.
It points out the limited probative value of these documents considering
the conduct charged against Woods in the superseding indictment. Id.
at 6. Compared to that limited probative value, it argues the likelihood
these documents confuse the issues and mislead the jury is substantially
high. Id. at 6-7. It points out the confusion that could arise if the
defendant were to introduce the Statutes and Regulations to the jury,
since the Court is responsible for instructing the jury regarding the
applicable law. See id. at 6-7 (citing United States v. Griffith, 2015 WL
471426, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2015)). It also contends the
introduction of the SBA Publications and Non-EIDL Documents would
confuse the issues by putting “the SBA’s administration of the EIDL
program on trial,” which would “overwhelm the jury and sow confusion
about what questions are properly before it.” Id. at 7.
The Government also moves to exclude Woods’ exhibit comprised of
“the SBA’s internal notes regarding the EIDL ending in -8102,” doc. 171-
16, as incomplete pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 106. Doc. 177
3
Case 4:22-cr-00016-RSB-CLR Document 184 Filed 04/26/23 Page 4 of 4
at 8. However, it indicates it would not object to that exhibit being
offered as authentic under Rule 902 so long as it is offered in full. Id.
Because Woods did not respond to the Government’s well-supported
and reasoned motion, it is GRANTED, as unopposed. Doc. 177. See,
e.g., United States v. Spencer, 2020 WL 624272, at *2 n.4 (S.D. Ga. Feb.
10, 2020) (granting motion in limine as unopposed). Woods’ exhibits,
which the Government has identified as the “Statutes and Regulations,”
the “SBA Publications,” and the “Non-EIDL Documents” are
EXCLUDED during the trial of this case pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 403. Additionally, the incomplete version of “the SBA’s
internal notes regarding the EIDL ending in -8102” is EXCLUDED,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 106, but Woods remains free to
offer a complete version of that document.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2023.
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY
RIST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
4