United States v. Edwards

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIS EDWARDS, III, Defendant.

No. 2:20-cr-00572-BRM

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 15, 2024

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

HON BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Defendant Willis Edwards, III's (“Defendant”) pre-trial motions requesting: (I) a bill of particulars, (II) an immediate hearing on the admissibility of F.R.E. 404(b) evidence, (III) immediate disclosure of the conviction records of potential witnesses as well as their agreements with the United States of America (“Government”), (IV) preservation of rough notes from the Government's investigation, (V) immediate disclosure of all relevant evidence regarding confidential informants and potential witnesses, (VI) an immediate hearing to determine the admissibility of hearsay statements by co-conspirators, (VII) immediate production of Jencks Act materials, (VIII) immediate disclosure of Brady and Giglio materials, (IX) the striking of the term “Plagiarism Scheme” from Counts 18 to 25 of the superseding indictment (“Indictment”), (X) the severance of the Indictment, and (XI) dismissal of Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment for being outside the relevant statute of limitations. (ECF No. 64.) The Government filed an opposition on May 22, 2023. (ECF No. 66.) Having reviewed the parties' submissions filed in connection with the Motions and having declined to hold oral argument, for the reasons set forth below and for good cause having been shown Defendant's pre-trial motions are DENIED. Motions I, to the extent it requests the identification of unindicted co-conspirators, as well as Rule 404(b) and Jencks Act evidence, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Motions I, to the extent it calls for a bill of particulars containing further substantive details on the charges, IX, X, and XI are DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The Indictment of September 29, 2020 variously charges Defendant with fraud pertaining to his conduct as the City of Orange's (“City”) Business Administrator, as well as for false statements on tax forms and mortgage relief applications. (ECF No. 14 (“Indictment”).) Defendant was appointed as Business Administrator for the City in July 2012, a position he held until December 31, 2015. (Id. at Count 1 ¶ 1A.) Count 1 charges Defendant with various conspiracies to defraud the City of his “honest services” as a public official, and of its money and property, via the use of interstate wire transmissions in furtherance of three schemes: the Saturday Literacy Program scheme (id. ¶¶ 4A-H), the Redevelopment Project scheme (id. at Count 1 ¶¶ 5A-H), and the Young Women's Christian Association (“YWCA”) Project scheme (id. ¶¶ 6A-G).

The Saturday Literacy Program scheme involved Defendant allegedly creating false vouchers to reimburse Orange Public Library (“Library”) for payments made to Urban Partners, a consulting firm run by Franklyn Ore (“Ore”), an associate of Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 1C, 4A-B.) These payments were made for a purported Saturday Literacy Program administered by Urban Partners at the Library. (Id. ¶ 4B.) The program was supported using Federal Community Development Block Grant funds distributed through the County of Essex to the Library for the reimbursement of Urban Partners. (Id. ¶¶ 4A-H.) This Saturday Literacy Program never occurred. (Id. ¶ 4B.) Between May 2015 to August 2015, the Library paid Urban Partners approximately $36,000, and Defendant subsequently received a portion of this amount in kickbacks from Urban Partners. (Id. ¶ 4G-H.)

The Redevelopment Project scheme arose from Defendant's alleged facilitation of a $150,000 contract between the City and an urban planning company for professional economic planning services to analyze the conditions in the Central Orange Redevelopment Area. (Id. ¶¶ 1G, 5A-H.) Defendant used his position to arrange for the urban planning company to hire Urban Partners to work on the Redevelopment Project. (Id. ¶ 5B.) The urban planning company paid Urban Partners $33,220 between August 2015 and February 2016 for its work on the project, of which a substantial amount was then paid to Defendant by Urban Partners as a kickback. (Id. ¶¶ 5E-F.) The urban planning company subsequently paid Urban Partners an additional $4,160 on May 27, 2016, of which $2,000 was allegedly paid by Urban Partners to Defendant as a kickback on June 15, 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 5G-H.)

The YWCA Project scheme is based on Defendant's facilitation of a fraudulent invoice from Urban Partners billing the City for work on the redevelopment of a YWCA building into a community recreation center. (Id. ¶¶ 1H, 6A-G.) Defendant allegedly facilitated the issuance of a City purchase order of $16,800 to Urban Partners for work on the project which never occurred. (Id. ¶¶ 6B-D.) The City issued a check to Urban Partners for $16,800, of which a substantial portion was allegedly then paid by Urban Partners to Defendant as a kickback. (Id. ¶¶ 6E-G.)

The Municipal Complex Project scheme involved the awarding of a $350,000 emergency contract to JZ Nettech, a computer consulting business owned by Jeanmarie Zahore (“Zahore”), to install a computer networking system at a City municipal complex. (Id. at Count 14 ¶¶ 2A-C.) Defendant allegedly gave favorable treatment to JZ Nettech in exchange for two cash payments from Zahore in the amount of approximately $10,000 in November 2015. (Id. ¶¶ 5W-Y.) These payments constituted kickbacks for the awarding of the $350,000 contract to JZ Nettech and subsequent payments on the contract. (Id. ¶¶ 5C-V.) Defendant assisted Zahore with various forms needed for JZ Nettech to obtain the contract. (Id. ¶ 5G.)

Defendant also allegedly used his position as Business Administrator for the City to facilitate City payments to Isaac Newton (“Newton”) in exchange for Newton writing academic papers for Defendant's university graduate program which Defendant passed off as his own work. (Id. at Count 17 ¶ 2B.) Defendant arranged for Newton to do consulting work for the City in exchange for writing papers for his university graduate course. (Id. ¶ 5C.) The Indictment links invoices submitted by Newton to the City with the dates Defendant received academic papers from Newton, including the submission of a December 1, 2015 invoice to the City the same day Newton emailed Defendant a 30-page dissertation proposal. (Id. ¶ 5F.)

The Graduate School Payments scheme deals with payments made by the City to Defendant to help him pay for graduate courses at a university. (Id. at Counts 26-27 ¶ 4.) After leaving his position as Business Manager for the City, Defendant allegedly forged a backdated approval memorandum authorizing the City to pay Defendant for his graduate courses. (Id. ¶ 5A.) The fraudulent approval memorandum bore the stamp of the initials of the Mayor of Orange to give the false impression that the Mayor had approved the reimbursement, but no such approval was ever given. (Id. ¶ 5B.) The City made a payment of $12,750 directly to the university where Defendant was taking graduate courses, and paid Defendant $12,392 for courses purportedly taken in the past. (Id. ¶ 5C.) When concerns were raised by other officials in the City regarding the reimbursements, Defendant repaid $5,464.28 to the City. (Id. ¶ 6.)

The Indictment also alleges two tax fraud schemes regarding Defendant's tax filings, with the first scheme being Defendant's claiming of false and fraudulent labor expenses for his business, Natural Care (id. at Count 28 ¶ 4), and the second being Defendant's failure to report various income sources on IRS Form 1040, including income from the Saturday Literacy Program, the Redevelopment Project, the YWCA Project, the Municipal Complex Project, and receipts from a New Jersey law firm and board of education (id. at Count 29 ¶ 3B). The labor expenses scheme involved false statements on IRS Form 1040 and Schedule C claiming Natural Care paid one individual compensation of $15,800, and another individual $11,255, for a total of $27,055 of labor expenses which were allegedly never actually paid. (Id. at Count 28 ¶ 6D.)

Finally, the Indictment alleges Defendant made false statements concerning a mortgage when he failed to report employment income from a job at a New Jersey community college on a form requesting mortgage assistance. (Id. at Counts 30 to 31 ¶¶ 6-7B.) Defendant requested mortgage relief due to his mortgage having fallen into substantial arrears as of February 11, 2014. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant proceeded to complete various forms requesting modification of his mortgage loan, each of which required him, under penalty of perjury, to report all income he received at the time of filling out the form. (Id. ¶¶ 6-9.) Defendant did not, however, report his income from the New Jersey community college on these forms. (Id. ¶ 6.) Relying on Defendant's representations, the bank holding the mortgage loan forgave approximately $95,590.81 of Defendant's mortgage debt and took the property out of foreclosure. (Id. ¶¶ 10A-B.)

B. Procedural History

The Government filed an indictment against Defendant on July 8, 2020 (ECF No. 1) and a superseding indictment on September 29, 2020. (ECF No. 14.) Defendant was arraigned on October 13, 2020. (ECF No. 17.) Defendant filed the present pre-trial motions on May 1, 2023. (ECF No. 64.) The Government filed an opposition on May 22, 2023. (ECF No. 66.)

III. MOTION I

A. Legal Standard

Under Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court may order the Government to produce a bill of particulars. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f); see also United States v Coburn, 439 F.Supp.3d 361, 382 (D.N.J. 2020). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c), the...