Memorandum and Order — No. 4:21-cr-00532 (Dkt. 389, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

A Memorandum and Order, Doc. #: 389, filed August 24, 2024 in United States v. Christopher Lee Carroll, et al., Case No. 4:21-cr-00532-SEP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, signed by United States District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk. It summarizes the court's oral rulings on the parties' motions in limine, which were argued at three pretrial conferences in August 2024. The order lists each defense and government motion with its outcome of granted, denied, granted in part or taken under advisement, including rulings on evidence about a prior conviction and testimony from a witness from the Small Business Administration about the Paycheck Protection Program. It states that all rulings are provisional and subject to change as evidence is introduced at trial.

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

Cite this document

“Memorandum and Order — No. 4:21-cr-00532 (Dkt. 389, E.D. Mo.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/memorandum-and-order-no-4-21-cr-00532-dkt-389-e-d-mo-14af90a5d5/, SHA-256 2e06c2d6b0b3a4a8fa36cd41fa79195f37af09690d6feebef6ac609771b24cfe.

Full text

Case: 4:21-cr-00532-SEP Doc. #: 389 Filed: 08/24/24 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
3905

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 4:21-cr-00532-SEP
)
CHRISTOPHER LEE CARROLL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are the parties’ motions in limine. During a series of three pretrial
conferences on August 15 (PTC I), August 20 (PTC II), and August 22 (PTC III), 2024, the
Court heard argument and issued oral rulings on the motions. This Order briefly recounts and
summarizes the Court’s rulings.
I. Defendants’ Motions In Limine
1. Defendants’ Motion In Limine Regarding Prior Conviction, Doc. [304], was
DENIED. As explained in detail on the oral record at PTC III, the United States may put on
evidence that Mr. Carroll was on parole for a felony at the time the first Paycheck Protection
Program (PPP) loan application was submitted. That evidence is relevant to his intent to
defraud. If Mr. Carroll testifies, the United States may use his prior felony conviction to attack
his character for truthfulness. See Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(B). Mr. Carroll’s credibility is likely
to be important to the jury, so the probative value of his past conviction outweighs its prejudicial
effect, so long as the United States is limited to only (1) that Mr. Carroll was convicted of a
felony and (2) the amount of time he served.
2. Defendants’ Motion In Limine Regarding SBA Testimony, Doc. [306], was
GRANTED IN PART. The United States witness from the Small Business Administration will
be allowed to testify as set forth by the Court during PTC II.
3. Defendants’ Motion In Limine Regarding Government Admission that He was Not an
Owner of Square One Group, Doc. [307], was DENIED. Defendants may renew the objection
during trial if they believe that the requirements for judicial estoppel are met.
4. Defendants’ Motion In Limine Regarding Unexplained and Unsupported Allegations,
Doc. [309], was GRANTED. Defendants moved to prohibit the United States from attacking
Mr. Carroll’s character for truthfulness with evidence that he caused George Reed’s driveway to
be vandalized. The United States provided the Court with the evidence supporting the allegation
at PTC II. Because the basis for the questioning is tenuous, the probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 608(b).
5. Defendants’ Motion In Limine Regarding Alleged Business Conduct, Doc. [310], was
DENIED. The United States has a good faith basis to inquire into Mr. Carroll’s allegedly

1
Case: 4:21-cr-00532-SEP Doc. #: 389 Filed: 08/24/24 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
3906

fraudulent business activities. Those instances of his past conduct are probative of his character
for truthfulness, and that probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 608(b).
6. Defendants’ Motion In Limine Regarding Photos of Chris Carroll’s Home, Doc.
[311], was GRANTED.
7. Defendants’ Motion In Limine Regarding Onboard Diagnostic Systems, Doc. [312],
was DENIED for the reasons that will be set out in a separate memorandum and order.
8. Defendants’ Motion In Limine Based on Recent Court Ruling in Another District,
Doc. [347], was DENIED. The fact and timing of large expenditures on things unrelated to the
purposes of the PPP loans are probative of the existence of the alleged scheme to defraud.
II. United States’ Motions In Limine1
1. United States’ Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence of Defendant Carroll’s Felony
Conviction and Parole Status was GRANTED as explained at PTC III and set forth above in
reference to Defendants’ Motion In Limine #1.
2. United States’ Motion in Limine to Permit Impeachment of Defendant Carroll with
Evidence of Prior Conviction for Forcible Sodomy was GRANTED IN PART as explained at
PTC III and set forth above in reference to Defendants’ Motion In Limine #1.
3. United States’ Motion in Limine to Admit Relevant, Intrinsic Evidence that
Defendant Carroll, George Reed, Kimberly Carroll, and Daniel Human Met at the Farmington
Correctional Center was GRANTED for the reason set forth on the record at PTC II.
4. United States’ Motion in Limine to Permit Cross-Examination of Defendant Carroll
Regarding Timeshare Exit Fraud was GRANTED as set forth above in reference to Defendants’
Motion In Limine #5.
5. United States’ Motion in Limine to Permit Cross-Examination of Defendant Carroll
Regarding Life Insurance Murder for Hire Conspiracy was DENIED. The probative value of the
evidence as to Mr. Carroll’s character for truthfulness is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 608(b).
6. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Improper Argument and Evidence
Regarding Amendments to PPP Rules was GRANTED IN PART. Evidence of changes to the
PPP loan eligibility that occurred after Mr. Carroll submitted the first loan application are not
relevant to the first loan application and create a danger of misleading the jury. Additionally,
general evidence of confusion unmoored from the facts of the case has limited probative value
and creates a danger of confusing the issues. Defendants may submit evidence of confusion that
is tied to the facts of the case.
7. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence and Argument Regarding
Lender Negligence was GRANTED as unopposed. Defendants represented that they do not plan
to put on evidence of lender negligence.

1
The United States filed all but one of its motions in limine in a combined Trial Brief and Motion In
Limine for Pretrial Determinations of Admissibility. See Doc. [308].

2
Case: 4:21-cr-00532-SEP Doc. #: 389 Filed: 08/24/24 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
3907

8. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Improper Legal Opinion as to Defendant
Carroll’s Ownership Status was GRANTED IN PART as set forth in PTC II. The parties should
also consider the Court’s oral ruling at PTC III regarding whether Mr. Carroll was an owner of
Square One Group within the meaning of the PPP loan application form. If necessary, the Court
will provide limiting instructions to ensure the jury is properly instructed on the relevant law.
9. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude an Advice of Counsel Defense was
GRANTED as unopposed. Defendants represented that they are not planning to put on an advice
of counsel defense at this time.
10. United States’ Motion in Limine to Admit Authentic, Relevant, Non-Hearsay
Communications Between Defendant Carroll, George Reed, and Matthew Titus was GRANTED
for the reasons set forth on the record at PTC II and III.
11. United States’ Motion in Limine to Admit Non-Hearsay Statements of Square One
Group Managers was DENIED. The United States represented that it does not plan to present
such evidence.
12. United States’ Motion in Limine to Prevent Improper Impeachment of George Reed
with Unsigned, Draft Plea Agreements, Which Were Neither Made nor Adopted by George Reed
was GRANTED IN PART. The question of impeaching George Reed with draft plea
agreements is moot because Defendants do not possess the draft plea agreements. The propriety
of any other questioning of Mr. Reed will be addressed as necessary at trial.
13. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Examination Regarding Privileged
Communication was GRANTED for the reasons set forth in Judge Welby’s Memorandum and
Order dated August 21, 2024, Doc. [371].
14. United States’ Motion in Limine to Enforce Terms of Defendant Carroll’s Proffer
Agreement was TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
15. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Improper Character Evidence was
TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court plans to apply the Federal Rules of Evidence to
exclude improper character evidence.
16. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants’ Introduction of Self-
Serving Hearsay was TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court will apply Federal Rule of
Evidence 106 as set forth in in United States v. Thurber, 106 F.4th 814 (8th Cir. 2024). And the
Court is cognizant of the “potential for abuse in impeaching one’s own witness with prior
inconsistent statements” and will apply Federal Rule of Evidence 403 as appropriate under the
circumstances. United States v. Buffalo, 358 F.3d 519, 522 (8th Cir. 2004).
17. United States’ Motion In Limine to Admit Summary Exhibits was TAKEN UNDER
ADVISEMENT pending Defendants’ review of the exhibits.
18. United States’ Motion in Limine to Permit Use of Demonstrative Exhibits with
Summary Witness was TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT pending Defendants’ review of the
exhibits.
19. United States’ Motion in Limine to Admit Certified Business Records was
GRANTED. Defendants withdrew their objection at PTC I.

3
Case: 4:21-cr-00532-SEP Doc. #: 389 Filed: 08/24/24 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
3908

20. United States’ Motion In Limine to Preclude Defendants from Claiming Ignorance of
Law or Mistake of Law was GRANTED as unopposed. Defendants represented that they are not
planning to make such an argument at this time but will notify the Court if that changes.
21. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Argument as to Selective or Vindictive
Prosecution was GRANTED as unopposed. Defendants represented that they are not planning to
make such an argument at this time but will notify the Court if that changes.
22. United States’ Motion in Limine Prohibit Improper Jury Nullification was
GRANTED. Defendants may cross examine witnesses about any cooperation with the United
States. Defendants will approach the bench before making any arguments about civil penalties
under the Clean Air Act.
23. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Unfounded Allegations of Law
Enforcement misconduct was GRANTED. The Court will apply Federal Rule of Evidence 608.
24. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Improper Argument as to Missing
Witnesses was TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court will reconsider the motion if a
party seeks a missing witness instruction.
25. United States’ Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Not Produced in Reciprocal
Discovery was DENIED as moot. Defendants represented to the Court that they will not
introduce any evidence in their case-in-chief that they have not already turned over to the United
States.
26. United States’ Motion in Limine to preclude Kimberly Carroll’s Medical Records,
Doc. [326], was DENIED. The Court will apply the Federal Rules of Evidence to the records.
The parties are encouraged to confer and resolve any issues related to the medical records in
advance of trial.
As stated at the pretrial conferences, all rulings are provisional and subject to change as
the parties introduce evidence at trial. It is incumbent upon the parties to make any argument
that a pretrial ruling should be reconsidered before taking any action contrary to a pretrial ruling.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of August, 2024.

SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File: 389.pdf
Size: 170,406 bytes
SHA-256: 2e06c2d6b0b3a4a8fa36cd41fa79195f37af09690d6feebef6ac609771b24cfe
Our copy: 389.pdf
Original: No public link identified.