Order on the Government’s Motion in Limine for Pretrial Evidentiary Rulings — No. 1:22-cr-00187 (Dkt. 185, D. Colo.)

Summary

An order on the Government's Motion in Limine for Pretrial Evidentiary Rulings (ECF No. 165) in United States v. Shambrica Washington, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-187-WJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed June 20, 2024 as Document 185 and signed by Senior Judge William J. Martínez. The motion sought rulings on self-authenticating records, summary charts, and evidence of the defendant's past conviction and other uncharged conduct, and the defendant responded (ECF No. 179). The parties agreed the summary charts are admissible subject to foundation under Rule 1006 and that the other issues are moot in light of their stipulations (ECF No. 180). The motion is granted in part, denied in part, and denied in part as moot.

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

“Order on the Government’s Motion in Limine for Pretrial Evidentiary Rulings — No. 1:22-cr-00187 (Dkt. 185, D. Colo.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-on-the-government-s-motion-in-limine-for-pretrial-evidentiary-ru-80efe7f077/, SHA-256 8daf21940257a7a496aba7dd49ddcb25a99923bd33393e5f60f9c685278e69ff.

Full text

Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 185 filed 06/20/24 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez

Criminal Case No. 22-cr-187-WJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

1. SHAMBRICA WASHINGTON,

Defendant.

ORDER ON THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
FOR PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

Before the Court is the Government’s Motion in Limine for Pretrial Evidentiary

Rulings (“Government’s MIL”) (ECF No. 165), to which Defendant Shambrica

Washington filed a response (ECF No. 179). After learning that Defendant had

stipulated to the authenticity or admissibility of none of the Government’s exhibits, the

Court directed the parties to confer and try to reach an agreement on the authenticity

and/or admissibility on as many exhibits as possible to facilitate a smoother trial. (ECF

No. 170.) Following conferral, the Government filed a Summary Report explaining the

parties’ positions. (ECF No. 177.) Additionally, the Government filed a Stipulation to

Authenticity and Application of Federal Rules of Evidence Relating to Business and

Public Records. (ECF No. 178.)

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

“The admission or exclusion of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the

trial court . . . .” Robinson v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 16 F.3d 1083, 1086 (10th Cir. 1994);
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 185 filed 06/20/24 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 7

see also United States v. Golden, 671 F.2d 369, 371 (10th Cir. 1982) (“Trial judges

have discretion to decide whether an adequate foundation has been laid for the

admission of evidence.”).

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, “[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any

tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Relevant evidence is

generally admissible and should only be excluded “if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the

jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R.

Evid. 403. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402.

The movant “has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible

on any relevant ground,” and a court “may deny a motion in limine when it lacks the

necessary specificity with respect to the evidence to be excluded.” Pinon Sun Condo.

Ass’n, Inc. v. Atain Specialty Ins. Co., 2020 WL 1452166, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 25, 2020)

(quoting First Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. U.S. Bancorp, 117 F. Supp. 2d, 1078, 1082 (D. Kan.

2000)).

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1) provides that “[e]vidence of any other crime,

wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a

particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” It may,

however, be admissible for other purposes, such as “proving motive, opportunity, intent,

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R.

Evid. 404(b)(2). The Tenth Circuit “instructs courts to consider four factors in weighing

the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b): (1) whether the evidence is offered for

2
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 185 filed 06/20/24 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 7

a proper purpose, (2) its relevancy, (3) that the probative value of the evidence is not

substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, and (4) a limiting instruction is given if

the defendant so requests.” United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152, 1156 (10th Cir.

2006) (citing Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691 (1988)).

II. ANALYSIS

The Government’s MIL seeks evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of the

following evidence prior to trial: (1) self-authenticating records; (2) summary charts; (3)

evidence related to Defendant’s past conviction and other uncharged conduct. (ECF

No. 165 at 1.)

A. Form 7200s and Attachment 7

The Government seeks to introduce evidence of other Forms 7200 that

Defendant signed and submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and that use

the name and/or unique tax preparer identification number linked to an identity-theft

victim of Count 31. (ECF No. 165 at 6.) The Government argues such evidence is

intrinsic evidence because it is part of the same course of conduct outlined in Counts 1–

31, were submitted in a scheme to defraud the same government program in Counts

28–30, and sought tax credits authorized by the same legislation discussed in Counts

1–30. (Id.)

Specifically, the Government explains that it will show that Defendant submitted

to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) an allegedly fabricated letter purported to

be from Elizabeth Whitecosh of Accounting Solutions Group (“ASG”) in Missouri. (Id. at

7.) The Government states that the letter asserted that ASG prepared federal tax

returns for Truelove’s Daughters since 2016, listed a Preparer Tax Identification

3
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 185 filed 06/20/24 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 7

Number (“PTIN”) belonging to an ASG accountant, and enclosed fabricated Forms 990

that make it appear that ASG filed Form 990 tax returns for Truelove’s Daughters. (Id.)

Like the fabricated letter and tax returns submitted to the SBA, the Government states

that each additional Form 7200 it intends to introduce lists some variation of Elizabeth

Whitworth’s—a true employee of ASG—name, firm, and/or PTIN. According to the

Government, the uncharged Forms 7200 are inextricably intertwined with the charged

false claims. (Id.)

In response, Defendant contests that the uncharged Forms 7200 are intrinsic

evidence, as the Government “has not shown how 18 Form 7200 filings for different

entities and time periods than those charged in both the form 7200 counts and SVOG

count are “inextricably intertwined” with the wire fraud, bank fraud and false claims

counts in the indictment.” (ECF No. 179 at 2–3.) She emphasizes that the Superseding

Indictment does not charge a single, overarching scheme to defraud the IRS

encompassing every Form 7200 she ever filed. (Id. at 3.)

Additionally, Defendant argues that not only are the Forms 7200 not intrinsic

evidence, but they also do not satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). (Id.)

Specifically, she argues that the Forms 7200 are propensity evidence, and the

Government’s argument that they are “admissible to show knowledge, absence of

mistake and plan is based on the flawed premise that these forms are sufficiently

similar” to Count 31. (Id.) Finally, she argues that even if the Court finds some of the

additional Forms 7200 admissible, the Government’s attempt to introduce eighteen such

forms is cumulative and unduly prejudicial. (Id. at 4.) Instead, “a handful of carefully

selected examples would suffice.” (Id.)

4
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 185 filed 06/20/24 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 7

Having carefully considered both parties’ arguments, the Court denies in part and

grants in part this portion of the Government’s MIL. The Court is persuaded that the

evidence of Defendant’s use of “Elizabeth Whitecosh” and her PTIN on numerous

Forms 7200 is intrinsic evidence of not just Count 31 in the Superseding Indictment but

all of the counts charged therein. Defendant’s alleged repeated use of the false tax

preparer’s information demonstrates a common thread throughout her alleged scheme

to defraud, notwithstanding the fact that not all conduct in the Forms 7200 is charged

and that the Government has not charged her with a scheme to defraud. And, even if

the evidence were not intrinsic evidence—which the Court finds it is—the Forms 7200

are admissible as evidence of Defendant’s alleged plan to file fraudulent applications to

obtain funds intended for COVID-19 economic relief.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Forms 7200 are admissible. However, the

Court agrees with Defendant that allowing the Government to introduce eighteen Forms

7200 would be cumulative and unduly prejudicial. Therefore, the Court will permit the

Government to introduce six such Forms 7200. The Court finds that one-third of the

Forms 7200 constitutes just such a “handful of carefully selected examples,” as

Defendant suggests in her response. (ECF No. 179 at 5.)

In a similar vein, the Court relies on the parties’ representations at the June 17,

2024 Final Trial Preparation Conference (“TPC”) that the Government’s summary

charts—including Attachment 7 (ECF No. 165-7)—are admissible, subject to laying a

proper foundation at trial and the Court’s ruling. However, Attachment 7 in its current

form contains all eighteen Forms 7200, and the Court will only allow six such

documents to be introduced at trial. Accordingly, if the Government still intends to

5
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 185 filed 06/20/24 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 7

introduce Attachment 7 at trial, the Court directs the Government to amend Attachment

7 so that it only includes those Forms 7200 it selects for introduction at trial. The

Government is free to move for the admission of an amended Attachment 7 at trial,

where Defendant will have the opportunity to lodge any objections she deems

appropriate at that time. The Government need not file an amended Attachment 7 on

the docket before trial.

B. Other Evidence

Also at the TPC the parties agreed that the Government’s proposed summary

charts are admissible at trial, subject to the Government laying a proper foundation

under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 and the Court’s ruling. Accordingly, the

Government’s MIL as to its summary chart exhibits is moot.

Additionally, the parties agreed that the remaining issues raised in the

Government’s MIL concerning self-authenticating records and evidence related to

Defendant’s past conviction and other uncharged conduct are moot in light of the

parties’ stipulations. (ECF No. 180.) Therefore, based on the representations of the

parties at the TPC, the Court concludes that the Government’s MIL is denied as moot

as to the remaining issues raised therein.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Government’s MIL (ECF No. 165) is

GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART AS MOOT as set forth

above.

Dated this 20th day of June, 2024.

6
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 185 filed 06/20/24 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 7

BY THE COURT:

______________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge

File and source

File: 185.pdf
Size: 162,167 bytes
SHA-256: 8daf21940257a7a496aba7dd49ddcb25a99923bd33393e5f60f9c685278e69ff
Our copy: 185.pdf
Original: archive.org