Home/Source documents/Court filing — United States v. Farah (Dkt. 427, D. Minn.)
Court filing — United States v. Farah (Dkt. 427, D. Minn.)
Full text
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 427 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 22-CR-124(3) (NEB/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
ABDIAZIZ SHAFII FARAH ET AL., UNREDACTED EXHIBIT
Defendant.
Defendants Aftin, A. Farah, S. Farah, Ibrahim, Ismail, H. Nur, and Sharif, by and
through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully move the Court for an order precluding
the government from entering an unredacted exhibit. This Exhibit is P-18 on the
government’s exhibit list (Recording of conversation between Abdimajid Nur and Hadith
Ahmed on September 12, 2022).
Portions of this audio recording should be redacted before submission because, if
unredacted, this exhibit poses a significant risk of confusing the issues and inflaming the
jury in contravention of Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
The portions of the audio recording that Defendant Ibrahim objects to do not
concern substantive issues relating to this case, but rather commentary by both subjects of
the recording on the trajectory of federal trials and how a defendant can communicate
with their attorney. In particular, at one portion of the tape beginning at approximately
1
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 427 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 3
1:42:00 and continuing to approximately 1:46:00 both subjects make the following
statements:
• that the justice department “only take[s] on cases…they only go to trial on
cases that they could win”
• That the justice department “wins 95% of their cases”
• That a good lawyer “can convince [anyone of] anything”
• That you can tell your lawyer “anything you want to”
Both subjects also refer at various points to how much certain lawyers involved in
this case might bill, and how that compares to other lawyers, including one lawyer
purported to be the most expensive.
This evidence is of course not relevant to the present case: it does not make any
fact in the actual trial “more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” It
does, however, run an extreme risk of confusing the issues of the present trial by giving
the jury the impression that the department of justice has a “strong case” which they
should easily win. These statements would be flatly objectionable if they came from a
prosecutor in a closing argument, they would be equally objectionable if entered into
evidence as an exhibit. See, e.g., Boyle v. Million, 201 F.3d 711, 714–15 (6th Cir. 2000)
(finding misconduct where a prosecutor argued “the reason you got that defense is
because [defendant] has the ability to muster the resources to present that defense.”);
United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 1980).
2
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 427 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 3
Accordingly, this exhibit should be precluded unless the government redacts the
above statements and any reference to how much certain attorneys involved in this case
or elsewhere are being paid.
Date: April 2, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ William J. Mauzy
William J. Mauzy (#68974)
William R. Dooling #0402244)
Mauzy Law Office, PA
650 Third Avenue South
Suite 260
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 340-9108
wmauzy@mauzylawfirm.com
Attorneys for Defendant
3