Order on Government’s Motion in Limine and Defendant Rodriguez Arteaga’s Motion to Strike the Motion in Limine — United States v. Lazaro Verdecia Hernandez and Yadier Rodriguez Arteaga, No. 23-20421 (Dkt. 84, S.D. Fla.)
Summary
In this order of November 1, 2024, Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the Southern District of Florida granted in part the Government's motion in limine (ECF No. 70) and denied Defendant Yadier Rodriguez Arteaga's motion to strike it (ECF No. 80) in United States v. Lazaro Verdecia Hernandez and Yadier Rodriguez Arteaga, No. 23-20421. The defendants face wire fraud and money laundering charges over an alleged Paycheck Protection Program scheme. Through co-defendant Heidi Cid's testimony and notebook entries, the Government sought to admit earlier credit card schemes and a small business loan scheme that it says "evolved" into the charged PPP conspiracy; at the hearing it withdrew the request on a second credit card scheme. The court found the prior acts intrinsic, showing the co-defendants "had a past, successful working relationship," and not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
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 1:23-cr-20421-RNS Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2024 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
United States of America )
v. )
Lazaro Verdecia Hernandez and ) Criminal Case No. 23-20421
Yadier Rodriguez Arteaga, )
Defendants. )
Order on Government’s Motion in Limine and Defendant Rodriguez
Arteaga’s Motion to Strike the Motion in Limine
This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s motion in limine to
admit inextricably intertwined evidence (ECF No. 70) and Defendant Yadier
Rodriguez Arteaga’s motion to strike the Government’s motion in limine. (ECF
No. 80.) On November 1, 2024, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions
ahead of trial. Having considered the motions, the arguments presented by
counsel, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants in part
the Government’s motion in limine (ECF No. 70), and the Court denies
Defendant Rodriguez Arteaga’s motion to strike. (ECF No. 80.)
Defendants Verdecia and Rodriguez face wire fraud and money laundering
charges stemming from their alleged participation in a scheme to defraud the
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). (Indictment, ECF No. 1.) The Government
sought to admit “inextricably intertwined evidence” of two credit card schemes
and a small business loan scheme that preceded the alleged PPP fraud
conspiracy. (ECF No. 70.) The Government attests that it will admit such
evidence via the testimony of Co-Defendant Heidi Cid and through her
notebook entries. (Id. at 4.)
The first credit card fraud scheme, according to the Government, started
with Defendant Verdecia executing fraudulent transactions using other
peoples’ credit cards; “Verdecia would then return the items purchased for
cash or sell them for cash.” (Id.) The Government alleges that Cid accompanied
Verdecia on trips in furtherance of the scheme and recorded purchases and
credit cards in her notebook. (Id.) Further, the Government alleges that
Defendant Rodriguez joined the credit card scheme in 2019, that he received
fraudulently obtained credit cards or merchandise at his home, and Cid’s
notebook details Rodriguez’s residence as the delivery location for stolen items
below victims’ information. (Id.)
In the motion, the Government also sought to introduce evidence of a
second credit card fraud scheme. (Id. at 5.) However, at the hearing, the
Government agreed that it would not introduce evidence of the credit card
Case 1:23-cr-20421-RNS Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2024 Page 2 of 3
scheme related to Verdecia’s automotive body shop in its case in chief, and
therefore withdrew that request. The Government reserves the right to
introduce this evidence in rebuttal.
The third scheme the Government seeks to admit allegedly preceded the
alleged PPP fraud. (Id.) According to the Government, Cid will testify that prior
to the COVID-19 pandemic, she and Verdecia transferred ownership of two of
their companies to their co-conspirators from the automotive body shop credit
card scheme. (Id. at 5-6.) The Government seeks to introduce evidence that
they used the companies to perpetuate small business loan fraud, a scheme
which “evolved” into the charged PPP fraud conspiracy. (Id. at 6.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), “[e]vidence of other crimes,
wrongs, or acts” is inadmissible to prove character or propensity, but it is
admissible for other purposes. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); United States v. Chavez,
204 F.3d 1305, 1316–17 (11th Cir. 2000). Evidence is admissible under 404(b)
if it is relevant for a non-propensity purpose, if the jury can find the prior act
occurred, and if the evidence satisfies Rule 403. Id. The non-propensity
reasons outlined by rule 404(b) include “proving motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
Evidence “falls outside the scope of rule 404(b)’s prohibition if it is ‘intrinsic’
to the charged offenses.” United States v. Munne, No. 23-10258, 2024 WL
4003395, at *4 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2024) (citing United States v. Estrada, 969
F.3d 1245, 1274 (11th Cir. 2020). Intrinsic acts are those that “arose out of the
same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,” are
“necessary to complete the story of the crime,” or are “inextricably intertwined
with the evidence regarding the charged offense” Id. (cleaned up).
When evidence shows “why coconspirators agree to commit crimes with one
another”, such facts “are intrinsic to a charged conspiracy.” Id. (collecting
cases). Specifically, when the prior acts show the co-conspirators “had a past,
successful working relationship,” such acts are intrinsic and therefore outside
the scope of Rule 404(b)’s prohibition.
Here, the prior acts the Government seeks to introduce at trial similarly
illustrate that the three co-defendants “had a past, successful working
relationship.” See id. The Government will introduce testimony about the prior
schemes not to show propensity, but to demonstrate how the Defendants were
“able to carry out such a large conspiracy in such a short period of time” and
why the Defendants were willing to enter into the conspiracy with one another.
(ECF No. 70); see also Munne, No. 23-10258, 2024 WL 4003395, at *4. The
evidence will be introduced via the testimony of a co-defendant, which is
sufficient to establish the prior acts’ occurrence by the preponderance of the
evidence. See Munne, No. 23-10258, 2024 WL 4003395, at *5 (holding a “single
witness’s ‘uncorroborated testimony’ can be sufficient to prove other acts’
Case 1:23-cr-20421-RNS Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2024 Page 3 of 3
existence). Finally, the probative value of the prior acts evidence—illustrating
how the Defendants were able to carry out the conspiracy in such a short
period of time, showing why they were willing to enter into the conspiracy, and
demonstrating their past successful working relationship—is not substantially
outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Thus, the Court grants in part the Government’s motion in limine (ECF No.
70), and the Court denies Defendant Rodriguez Arteaga’s motion to strike.
(ECF No. 80.)
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on November 1, 2024.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.656569.84.0.pdf
- Size
- 90,267 bytes
- SHA-256
- e4c3e07b672a9a9134220e3f89e3e8f4832dd3183542598e9eebfddfdc70e824
- Original
- archive.org