Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 455, D. Minn.)

Summary

Defendant Aimee Bock's Response to the Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude References to the Government's Charging Decisions, Doc. 455, filed 01/14/25 in Case 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS, United States of America v. Aimee Marie Bock (1), Criminal No: 22-CR-223 (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Through counsel, Bock objects to the government's motion (Doc. #417) and joins Defendant Abdulkadir Nur Salah's opposition (Doc. #450). She argues that it may be appropriate to allow testimony about charging decisions bearing on selective or vindictive prosecution, and states that the executive director of Partners in Nutrition was not indicted while she was. The response asks that she be allowed to present testimony on the motivation behind her prosecution and is dated January 14, 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. 455     Filed 01/14/25     Page 1 of 3




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




United States of America,
                                            DEFENDANT AIMEE BOCK’S RESPONSE
              Plaintiff,                    TO THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN
                                            LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES TO
vs.
                                            THE GOVERNMENT’S CHARGING
Aimee Marie Bock (1),                       DECISIONS
              Defendant.




                                     INTRODUCTION

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

counsel, Kenneth Udoibok, respectfully objects to the Government’s Motion in Limine,

which seeks to preclude any testimony regarding the Government’s charging decisions

during this trial. (Doc. #417). Further, Bock joins Defendant Abdulkadir Nur Salah’s

general opposition to the Government’s Motion in Limini. (Doc. #450).

       Specifically, Defendant herein asserts that it is appropriate to elicit testimony

about the Government’s charging decisions before the jury.

                                        ANALYSIS

       The Eighth Circuit has held that a prosecutor may inquire into the terms of a

cooperating witness’s plea agreement, provided that such information is not used as

evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the jury is properly instructed to evaluate witness

credibility independently. Additionally, while the Eighth Circuit has not directly

                                              1
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS           Doc. 455    Filed 01/14/25     Page 2 of 3




addressed whether a defendant may present evidence related to vindictive or selective

prosecution, it has established that such inquiries are permissible under certain

conditions. See United States v. Cardarella, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64370, at *5 (W.D.

Mo. Aug. 30, 2007). Other circuits have upheld the exclusion of such evidence, but this is

not a uniform rule.

       In the Eighth Circuit, it may be appropriate to allow testimony concerning the

Government’s charging decisions related to selective or vindictive prosecution, provided

the evidence meets the objective standard and is relevant to material issues, such as the

prosecutor’s motives. The court must also carefully instruct the jury on the limited

purpose of this testimony to prevent undue prejudice. See United States v. Leathers, 354

F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir. 2004).

       In the present case, the Government is prosecuting Defendant for likely lawful

conduct. The Government’s trial brief indicates that Partners in Nutrition (PIN) engaged

in similar activities as the organization, Feeding Our Future. However, the executive

director of PIN was not indicted, whereas the executive director of Feeding Our Future

was. The only distinguishing factor appears to be that Defendant Bock took successful

legal action against the Minnesota Department of Education—the same conduct that

forms the basis of the criminal charges against her.

       Given these circumstances, the Government’s charging decisions appear to reflect

a potentially selective or vindictive prosecution. Defendant argues that she should be

permitted to elicit testimony regarding the motive behind her prosecution, especially in



                                             2
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS          Doc. 455     Filed 01/14/25     Page 3 of 3




light of the disparity in treatment compared to other individuals allegedly involved in the

same conduct who did not pursue legal action related to the food program.

                                         CONCLUSION

       While the Eighth Circuit has not directly addressed the issue of admitting evidence

related to prosecutorial motives, general principles of prosecutorial discretion and the

heavy burden on Defendant suggest that a cautious but permissible approach may allow

for the admission of such evidence. Therefore, Defendant should be allowed to present

testimony regarding the motivation behind her prosecution, as it is relevant to material

issues in this case.

                                                 Respectfully Submitted

                                                 KENNETH UBONG UDOIBOK, P.A.

January 14, 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




                                             3


File and source

File

455.pdf

Size

116,871 bytes

SHA-256

acf73789d9094ac7efee9197d0a63fb3af2aac5454acac63adf6aff6a82545d6

Our copy

455.pdf

Original

archive.org