Government's Motion in Limine on Charging Decisions — United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al. (D. Minn., Doc. 417)

Summary

The Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude References to the Government's Charging Decisions, filed 01/10/25 as Doc. 417 in United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., Criminal No. 22-223 (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The government asks the court to bar questioning at trial about why uncharged individuals and co-conspirators were not charged. It argues that the fact some individuals were not charged is not relevant to whether the defendants joined the charged conspiracy, and that any argument that the defendants were singled out would be a selective prosecution claim that must be raised before trial and decided outside the jury's presence. It adds that no such claim is before the court. The motion is dated January 8, 2025.

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 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 417    Filed 01/10/25   Page 1 of 3




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                       Criminal No. 22-223 (NEB/DTS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff,

       v.                                 GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
                                          TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES TO
1. AIMEE MARIE BOCK,                      THE GOVERNMENT’S CHARGING
3. SALIM SAID,                            DECISIONS
4. ABDULKADIR NUR SALAH,
   and
6. ABDI NUR SALAH,

                    Defendants.


      The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Andrew M. Luger,

United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, Joseph H. Thompson, Harry M.

Jacobs, Matthew S. Ebert, and Daniel W. Bobier, Assistant United States Attorneys,

respectfully submits the following motion in limine to preclude references to the

government’s charging decisions, including questioning why other uncharged

individuals, including co-conspirators, were not charged for their roles in the scheme

to defraud the Federal Child Nutrition Program.

      At trial, the government expects the evidence to show that uncharged

individuals and other co-conspirators assisted the defendants in carrying out the

scheme to defraud the Federal Child Nutrition Program. The fact that some of these

individuals may not have been charged in the instant case is not relevant to the

question of whether the defendants participated in the charged conspiracy. See

O’Malley, Grenig & Lee, Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. § 12:11 (6th ed. 2024) (“You are here
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 417    Filed 01/10/25    Page 2 of 3




to determine whether the government has proven the guilt of the defendant[s] for the

charge[s] in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. You are not called upon to

return a verdict as to the guilt or innocence of any other person or persons.”).

      Any argument that the defendants were somehow singled out for prosecution

would amount to a selective prosecution allegation. As the U.S. Supreme Court has

stated, “[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.” United States v. Armstrong,

517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996). “In the ordinary case, ‘so long as the prosecutor has probable

cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the

decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand

jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.’” Id. at 464 (quoting Bordenkircher v.

Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)).

      Claims of selective prosecution must be raised before trial and resolved outside

the presence of the jury. See United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 495

(D.C. Cir. 1983) (issue of selective prosecution is to be determined by the court);

United States v. Jarrett, 705 F.2d 198, 204-05 (7th Cir. 1983) (claims of selective

prosecution must be raised before trial). In the instant case, no selective prosecution

claims are before the Court. Likewise, evidence bearing on the government’s decision

to prosecute is “extraneous and collateral” and thus excluded from trial. United States

v. Johnson, 605 F.2d 1025, 1030 (7th Cir. 1979) (affirming the exclusion of evidence

offered to show that the “indictment was a political instrument”); United States v.



                                           2
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 417      Filed 01/10/25   Page 3 of 3




Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 174-76 (3rd Cir. 1973) (affirming exclusion of evidence

relating to “discriminatory prosecution”).

      Of course, as a more general matter, it is also settled law that inquiries

regarding the subjective intentions or motivations of a government agent are

irrelevant to determining the factual guilt or innocence of a defendant. See, e.g.,

United States v. Roell, 487 F.2d 395, 400 (8th Cir. 1974) (holding that officers’

“subjective reasons for [defendant’s] arrest were properly found to be irrelevant”);

United States v. Goulding, 26 F.3d 656, 667 (7th Cir. 1994) (noting that, even in the

context of an entrapment defense, it was proper for the trial court not to “allow the

defense to mount an inquiry into the mental states of the investigating officers since

such evidence was irrelevant”).

      Accordingly, the defendants should be precluded at trial from making

allegations of or arguing selective prosecution to the jury. Making any reference to

others having not been prosecuted, and argument about the government’s

motivations for pursuing the instant case, should likewise be barred.



Dated: January 8, 2025                           Respectfully Submitted,

                                                 ANDREW M. LUGER
                                                 United States Attorney

                                                 /s/Joseph H. Thompson

                                       BY:       JOSEPH H. THOMPSON
                                                 HARRY M. JACOBS
                                                 MATTHEW S. EBERT
                                                 DANIEL W. BOBIER
                                                 Assistant United States Attorneys


                                             3


File and source

File

417.pdf

Size

101,208 bytes

SHA-256

96b5da84eceab23910af1b79207a1780cac9101fbd9fd10f756938faeda19b8c

Our copy

417.pdf

Original

archive.org