US v. Nsahlai: Nsahlai’s husband (an “international businessman”) had two businesses incorporated in Virginia which had no employees. Nonetheless, the businesses applied for PPP loans to cover payroll costs, using fraudulent payroll data generated by Nsahlai. She was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and related offenses and went to trial. Prior to trial, the district court granted a Government motion to exclude portions of a recording in which Nsahlai and her sister discussed abuse (violence and threats) Nsahlai suffered at the hands of her husband. Nsahlai stated that she was not pursuing a duress defense, but that she intended to argue that “the overall circumstances of [her abusive] relationship” explained why she engaged in the charged conduct, attacking the mens rea elements of the offenses. The district court clarified that if Nsahlai testified she could go into the abuse somewhat. Nsahlai did not testify and was convicted of all counts at trial.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Nsahlai’s convictions. Nsahlai’s primary argument was that the district court erred by excluding the recording (the court noted that while Nsahlai referred to other evidence of abuse that might have been introduced there was no proffer of what that was). The court found that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling, concluding that the recording (which took place after the conduct at issue in the indictment) was “vague” and referred to “events that occurred at an unknown point in time and without context” and thus was not relevant. That was because the court rejected Nsahlai’s argument that the abuse had anything to do with the mens rea elements of the offense, given the lack of duress defense. Even if it was relevant, the court held it would have been properly excluded under Rule 403 as unduly prejudicial and, additionally, harmless given the weight of evidence against Nsahlai.
No comments:
Post a Comment