Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 441, D. Minn.)

Summary

Defendant Aimee Bock's Motion in Limine No. 1 (Allegations Beyond Indictment) in United States of America v. Aimee Marie Bock (1), Criminal No. 22-CR-223 (NEB/DTS), Case 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS, in the District of Minnesota, Doc. 441 filed 01/13/25. Through counsel Kenneth Udoibok, the defendant moves to preclude the Government from introducing evidence or arguments not included in the indictment, citing Stirone v. Unites States, 361 U.S. 212, 217 (1960) and the rule against a fatal variance. The motion lists four subjects: Handy Helpers or Empress Watson, Jr, a Policies and Procedures Manual for Afterschool Programs, vendors and sites not identified in the indictment, and Feeding Our Future's administrative fee. It is dated January 13, 2025 and signed /s/Kenneth U. Udoibok.

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. 441     Filed 01/13/25    Page 1 of 5




                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                           CRIMINAL NO: 22-CR-223 (NEB/DTS)




United States of America,
              Plaintiff,                           DEFENDANT AIMEE BOCK’S
                                                    MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
vs.
Aimee Marie Bock (1),
              Defendant.




                                    INTRODUCTION

       Defendant Aimee Marie Bock (hereinafter “Defendant”), through her counsel,

Kenneth Udoibok, respectfully moves this Court to preclude the Government from

introducing certain evidence and making certain arguments. Bock reserves the right to

file additional motions in limini once she has reviewed the Government’s recently

produced witnesses and exhibits list.

                                MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
                              (Allegations Beyond Indictment)

       It is axiomatic that the Government must limit the evidence it produces at trial to

the facts alleged in the indictment. Defendants have a Fifth Amendment right to be tried

only on a grand jury indictment and a Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial free of undue

surprise and ambush. Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887). It has long been the rule that “a

court cannot permit a defendant to be tried on charges that are not made in the indictment

against him…” Stirone v. Unites States, 361 U.S. 212, 217 (1960). Courts also have to
                                             1
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS           Doc. 441      Filed 01/13/25    Page 2 of 5




ensure there is no “fatal variance” between the allegations in the indictment and the

evidence at trial. A fatal variance “occurs when the essential elements of the offense set

forth in the indictment are left unaltered but the evidence offered at trial proves facts

materially different from those alleged in the indictment.” Unites States v. Begnaud, 783

F.2d 144, 147, n.2 (8th Cir. 1986). Courts have also been clear that as a general rule, “the

accused shall be definitely informed as to the charges against him, so that he may be

enabled to present his defense and not be taken by surprise by the evidence offered at

trial.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82 (1935).

       This is particularly true here, where Bock moved for a bill of particulars (ECF No.

194) and the Government successfully opposed the motion by arguing the indictment

provided sufficient detail of the alleged crimes (ECF No. 255, p. 25).

       To ensure the protection of Bock’s Constitutional rights to be tried only on the

charges in the indictment and to a fair trial free from undue surprise, she moves to

preclude the Government from introducing any evidence or making any arguments not

included in the indictment. Specifically, Bock moves to preclude any evidence or

argument relating to:

       1.     Handy Helpers or Empress Watson, Jr. Handy Helpers was hired by

Feeding Our Future to perform significant renovations to its offices. Although the subject

of the Government’s early investigations, the undisputed facts show Handy Helpers

received no more than fair, market rate compensation for their work; none of the proceeds

had anything to do with Bock; and Handy Helpers was consequently never charged with

any crimes, and it was not included in the indictment.

                                              2
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS          Doc. 441     Filed 01/13/25    Page 3 of 5




       2.     Policies and Procedures Manual for Afterschool Programs. In December

2021, a company called School Age Consultants sold a detailed and substantial manual

outlining policies and procedures for afterschool programs to ensure they complied with

various DHS regulatory requirements and policies. The manual is not mentioned

anywhere in the indictment, and it has nothing to do with the crimes alleged.

       3.     Claims Other than those identified in the indictment. The indictment

alleges that Bock conspired with specific vendors and sites, namely: (i) Safari Restaurant;

(ii) ASA Limited; (iii) Stigma-Free International; (iv) Stigma-Free Wilmar Site; (v)

Stigma-Free Mankato Site; (vi) Stigma-Free Waite Park Site; and (vii) the Southcross

Site. The indictment identifies the vendors and sites involved in the alleged conspiracy

and explains the acts each defendant allegedly undertook in furtherance of the alleged

conspiracy. The Government, therefore, should be precluded from introducing any

evidence or making any arguments about any unrelated sites or vendors.

       4.     Feeding Our Future’s Administrative Fee. As permitted by federal law,

Feeding Our Future charged sites an administrative fee to process their claims for

reimbursement. Bock moved to dismiss the indictment and for a Franks hearing. As part

of that motion, Bock argued the administrative fee was legal, appropriate, and had

nothing to do with Bock as the money went to Feeding Our Future and not to her

personally. The magistrate denied the motion, but in so doing, explicitly held the

administrative fee had nothing to with the alleged crimes: “Regardless, none of the

offenses charged are premised on the illegality of Feeding Our Future’s administrative

fees.” (ECF No. 366 at 16). In defending the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation,

                                             3
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS          Doc. 441    Filed 01/13/25     Page 4 of 5




the Government argued: “That conclusion was also correct and should be adopted.” (ECF

No. 373, p. 12). To avoid all doubt, the Court should preclude the Government from

making any arguments or presenting any evidence to suggest Feeding Our Future’s

administrative fees were in any way improper, inappropriate, or somehow related to the

allegations in the indictment.

       The indictment makes no mention whatsoever of Handy Helpers, the afterschool

manual, or sites beyond those specifically identified. Those issues have nothing to do

with the alleged crimes and allowing the Government to present any evidence or

argument about them would be a waste of time, confusing to the jury, would be a fatal

variance from the indictment, and would be an unfair surprise. Bock has been given no

notice from the Government that she has any reason to prepare or present any defense

relating to any of those issues. Similarly, the Government has conceded and even argued

that Feeding Our Future’s administrative fee has no relation to the alleged crimes.

       In sum, Bock seeks an order precluding the Government from producing any

evidence or making any arguments that are not included in the indictment, including but

not limited to: (1) Handy Helpers or Empress Watson, Jr; (2) the Policies and Procedures

Manual for Afterschool Programs; (3) vendors and sites not identified in the indictment;

and (4) Feeding Our Future’s administrative fee.



                                           ###




                                             4
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS   Doc. 441   Filed 01/13/25   Page 5 of 5




                                        Respectfully Submitted

                                        KENNETH UBONG UDOIBOK, P.A.

January 13, 2025                        /s/Kenneth U. Udoibok
                                         Kenneth U. Udoibok (#0262523)
                                         Flour Exchange Building, Suite
                                         5010 310 Fourth Avenue South
                                         Minneapolis, MN 55415
                                         Phone: (612) 808-6031
                                         k@kenulaw.com


                                        ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
                                        AIMEE MARIE BOCK




                                    5


File and source

File

441.pdf

Size

171,081 bytes

SHA-256

88c2687fc538f84957ad2df1ba0e37aa3c37e7ab48d24a9b9216f39f72df5084

Our copy

441.pdf

Original

archive.org