Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Ojimba

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

August 9, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
NNAMDI FRANKLIN OJIMBA, Defendant.

          ORDER

          TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge.

         Before the Court is Defendant's Motion in Limine Re: Hearsay Testimony of Akunna Ejiofor [Doc. No. 89]. The government has responded [Doc. No. 93]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.

         BACKGROUND

         This matter stems from a prior criminal case in which the government alleged Ken Ezeah and Akunna Ejiofor created a scheme to commit identity theft and wire fraud. In sum, the defendants were alleged to have set up various online dating profiles using false information, formed online relationships with several women, and then persuaded those women to wire money by promising to manage their money and investments. Ezeah subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Ejiofor opted to go to trial, where a jury found her guilty on all counts. Here, Defendant was similarly indicted and tried for conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count 1), aggravated identity theft (Count 2), and wire fraud (Counts 3-4) in October 2018. On October 11, 2018, the jury acquitted Mr. Ojimba on Counts 2-4 and a mistrial was declared as to Count 1. The government filed an Advisement to the Court [Doc. No. 67] on November 16, 2018, of its intent to retry Mr. Ojimba on Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

         On July 30, 2019, the government informed Defendant that it intends to call Ms. Ejiofer as a witness against Defendant. The government subsequently produced a tape recording of a July 29, 2019, interview of Ms. Ejiofer.

         Defendant moves to preclude the government from introducing the following alleged hearsay statements:

a. Ken Ezeah asked Ejiofor to run errands for “Franklin” (ostensibly Defendant) and Anthony Benson because they worked for him and he wanted to keep them happy;
b. Ken Ezeah told Ms. Ejiofor that “Franklin” was a “key player” in his business;
c. Ken Ezeah told Ms. Ejiofor that “Franklin” was a “valuable employee” who “did everything” for him;
d. Ken Ezeah told Ms. Ejiofor that he had “Franklin” working “on the computer” while “Franklin” lived at the Value Place Motel;
e. Ken Ezeah told Ms. Ejiofor that in comparison to what a good “worker” Franklin was, Ejiofor was not of much value to him; and,
d. The leaseholder of the apartment in which “Franklin” had moved into was not happy about it.

         STANDARD

         “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41, n. 16, 105 S.Ct. 460, 463, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 103(c); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e)). As such, “[t]he purpose of a motion in limine is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.