United States v. Bhimani
| Decision Date | 02 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL NO. 3:17-324 |
| Citation | 492 F.Supp.3d 376 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Faizal BHIMANI, Om Sri, Inc., Nazim Hassam, and Pocono Plaza Inn f/k/a Quality Inn, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Sean A. Camoni, U.S. Attorney's Office, Scranton, PA, for United States of America.
Bernard J. Brown, Attorney Bernard J. Brown, Carbondale, PA, for Defendants.
Presently before the court is the government's motion in limine to admit at trial the video recorded post-arrest statement and admissions of defendant Faizal Bhimani implicating himself and his co-defendants. Bhimani made the statements after he was arrested and advised of his Miranda rights and, after he knowingly and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The government seeks a ruling that the redacted video of Bhimani's October 25, 2017 interview by Task Force Officers ("TFO") William Patton and Christopher Shelly, after his arrest, has resolved the court's prior ruling, (Doc. 104 at 5-6), which held that portions of the video interview which were inadmissible. The government further argues that the redacted video statement does not implicate Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), because Bhimani was an agent of each of his codefendants, and gave statements about matters within the scope of his agency. The defendants oppose the motion and argue that the court should preclude the government's use of Bhimani's redacted video interview at trial since it is hearsay and violates their Confrontation Clause rights based on Bruton and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The defendants also point out, without elaborating further, that the interview should be precluded since they intend on presenting a joint defense at trial.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion, (Doc. 125) , will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART . Bhimani's redacted video statement will be admissible against him and against at least his two entity co-defendants since they are non-hearsay admissions by Bhimani, as it is clear he was the agent of his entity co-defendants and, he made the statements about matters within the scope of his employment. As to Bhimani's inculpatory statements against defendant Nazim Hassam, the court will await the presentation of evidence at trial to decide whether there is an agency relationship and if his statements would violate Crawford.1
On July 21, 2020, the Second Superseding Indictment was filed against Bhimani, Om Sri Sai, Inc., Hassam, and Pocono Plaza Inn, f/k/a Quality Inn. (Doc. 113). Bhimani and Om Sri Sai, Inc., were charged with two counts of Sex Trafficking by Force and Coercion, 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). Bhimani, Hassam and Om Sri Sai, Inc., were charged with one count of Drug Trafficking Conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and with one count of Managing a Drug Premises, 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). Also, Hassam, Bhimani, and Pocono Plaza Inn, f/k/a Quality Inn, were charged with one count of Managing a Drug Premises, 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). The charges arise, in part, from allegations that Bhimani allowed and assisted his co-defendants in renting, leasing, and making available the hotel for the purposes of sex trafficking, and storing, distributing, and using controlled substances, including cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and marijuana, in Stroudsburg, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
The defendants were arraigned and pled not guilty to the charges.
The trial in this case is scheduled to commence on October 5, 2020.
On July 2, 2019, Om Sri Sai, Inc. filed two Motions in Limine seeking: 1) the preclusion of the video of Bhimani's interrogation and admissions; and 2) permission to admit evidence regarding sex trafficking victims’ other sexual behavior and/or sexual predisposition under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 412. (Docs. 64, 65). Subsequently, the other defendants joined in the motions. In particular, the defendants moved to exclude Bhimani's video statement based, in part, on Sixth Amendment grounds and Bruton, and in part arguing that the video statement contained inadmissible hearsay.
On October 17, 2019, the court2 issued a Memorandum and found that portions of the video interview contained inadmissible hearsay and granted defendants’ motion without prejudice. (Doc. 104 at 5-6). The Court ordered that "[t]he Government may present a redacted version of the video which excludes all prejudicial and hearsay portions as described in th[at] Order subject to any other bars to admissibility." The Court deferred ruling on the second motion in limine , (Doc. 65), as well as the Bruton, Crawford, and agency issues regarding Bhimani's statement.
The government filed its instant motion in limine, (Doc. 125), on September 4, 2020, seeking the court to admit at trial the redacted video-recorded post-arrest statement of Bhimani, and attached the redacted version of the video transcript of Bhimani's interview as Ex. 1.
The defendants filed their brief in opposition to the motion on September 14, 2020, (Doc. 130), and on September 15, 2020, Bhimani filed his Affidavit in opposition to the government's motion.
The government filed a response to Bhimani's Affidavit on September 16, 2020. (Doc. 132).
On September 17, 2020, the court issued an Order and denied in part defendants’ motion in limine , (Doc. 65), to admit evidence regarding sex trafficking victims’ other sexual behavior and/or sexual predisposition under FRE 412, (Doc. 133). The court, however, held that the defendants will be permitted to cross examine the government's victim witnesses about their prostitution activities during the limited time period of the sex trafficking offenses charged in Counts One and Two of the Second Superseding Indictment. (Doc. 113).
Also, on September 17, 2020, the final pre-trial conference was held and the court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether they could agree on further redactions to the recorded post-arrest interview of Bhimani.
The parties conferred on September 23, 2020, and the government filed a "Supplement to Motion In Limine. " (Doc. 136). According to the government, the parties "agreed upon substantial redactions to the interview, as reflected in the yellow highlighted portions of the attached transcript." (Doc. 136 at 1 & Doc. 136-1). The government states that "the defendants may object to the admissibility of further portions of the interview", but it contends that the un-highlighted portions of the transcript, (Doc. 136-1), are admissible. The government also states that the latest redactions submitted "contemplate only admissibility issues, and do not address the defendants’ objections [to Bhimani's statement] on Bruton and Crawford grounds", and that the parties rely on their prior briefs filed with respect to the government's motion in limine.
Alternatively, the government asserts that if the video is ruled inadmissible, the TFO's should still be permitted to testify as to Bhimani's substantive admissions.
In light of the government's supplement, the court issued an Order on September 24, 2020, (Doc. 137), and directed that
On September 24, 2020, defendants Om Sri Sai, Inc., Hassam and Pocono Plaza Inn filed their response to the government's supplement and provided specific reference to the portions of the redacted transcripts to which they still object arguing they contain "hearsay statements and improper questions by police detectives who conducted the post-arrest interrogation, along with Mr. Bhimani's largely unresponsive answers." (Doc. 138). Bhimani also filed his response to the government's supplement on September 24, 2020, with attached Exhibits. (Doc. 139).
On September 28, 2020, defendants Om Sri Sai, Inc., Hassam and Pocono Plaza Inn filed their response to the government's motion in limine regarding the Bruton and Crawford issues and, argue that Bhimani's entire post-arrest interrogation video should be precluded at trial based on the stated Supreme Court cases. (Doc. 140).
On September 30, 2020, the government filed its reply to the defendants’ responses to its supplemental motion. (Doc. 142).
Also, on September 30, 2020, defendants Om Sri Sai, Inc., Hassam and Pocono Plaza Inn filed a sur-reply brief to the government's reply brief, without leave of court, in violation of the rules of this court. (Doc. 143). Despite the lack of permission, the court will consider defendants’ sur-reply brief.
"The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence." United States v. Tartaglione , 228 F.Supp.3d 402, 406 (E.D. Pa. 2017). On a motion in limine , evidence should only be excluded "when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Id. Evidentiary rulings on motions in limine are subject to the trial judge's discretion and are therefore reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Abrams v. Lightolier, Inc. , 50 F.3d 1204, 1213 (3d Cir. 1995) ; Bernardsville Bd. of Educ. v. J.H. , 42 F.3d 149, 161 (3d Cir. 1994). "The Court is vested with broad inherent authority to manage its cases, which carries with it the discretion and authority to rule on motions in limine prior to trial." Ridolfi v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. , 2017 WL 3198006, *2 (M.D. Pa. July 27, 2017). Further, "[c]ourts may exercise this discretion in order to ensure that juries are not exposed to unfairly prejudicial,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Way
... ... Civil Action No. 20-10753 (MAS) (ZNQ) United States District Court, D. New Jersey. Filed October 6, 2020 492 F.Supp.3d 358 Michael L. Testa, ... ...
-
Black Bear Energy Servs., Inc. v. Youngstown Pipe & Steel, LLC
...proof that a statement was made within the scope of employment[.]" Riley, 621 F.3d at 338 (citation omitted). United States v. Bhimani, 492 F. Supp. 3d 376, 387 (M.D. Pa. 2020). "[A]n employer[, however,] is not vicariously responsible for each statement made by its employees. In order for ......
-
United States v. Johnson
...that implicates the Bruton rule that is offered during trial will be redacted to comply with Bruton. Indeed, in U.S. v. Bhimani, 492 F.Supp.3d 376 (M.D. Pa. 2020), the court considered the government's motion in limine to allow the post-arrest statements one defendant made that implicated h......