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. Nicoletti

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 26, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL NICOLETTI, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PREVENT THE USE OF GOVERNMENT WIRETAPS OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS OF DEFENDANT (DOC. #118)

          VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The United States charged Paul Nicoletti (“Nicoletti”) in a four-count indictment with conspiracy to commit and aiding and abetting bank fraud.

         Nicoletti filed a motion in limine to bar the government from introducing “wiretaps” of telephone conversations Nicoletti had with a co-defendant; he says the Court should grant his motion because the recordings: (1) were obtained illegally; (2) are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; and (3) cannot be properly authenticated. Moreover, Nicoletti says that if the Court denies his motion the government must play the entirety of the recordings under Federal Rule of Evidence 106.

         The Court DENIES Nicoletti's motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Nicoletti, an attorney licensed in the State of Michigan and President of Continental Title Insurance Agency, Inc., was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and three counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 & 2.

         The indictment alleges that Nicoletti willfully conspired with and aided and abetted others to execute and attempt to execute a scheme to defraud and obtain money from Fifth Third Bank. Each of the three aiding and abetting counts are for separate multi-million dollar loans that Nicoletti allegedly secured under materially false and fraudulent pretenses and representations.

         The indictment alleges that Nicoletti and his co-conspirators employed straw buyers to serve as mortgage loan applicants for the purchase of real property. The conspirators also allegedly provided false information in the loan applications; they allegedly falsified the income and assets of the straw buyers, the source of the down payments for the loans, and the intentions of the purported purchasers.

         According to the indictment, Nicoletti knowingly facilitated the fraudulent real estate transactions by acting as title agent, coordinating and conducting real estate closings, preparing HUD-1 Settlement Statements, and disbursing the proceeds of the mortgage loans.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         District courts have broad discretion over matters regarding the admissibility of evidence at trial. United States v. Seago, 930 F.2d 482, 494 (6th Cir. 1991). “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. 4 (1984). “A ruling on a motion in limine is no more than a preliminary, or advisory opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court.” United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994). Motions in limine may promote “evenhanded and expeditious management of trials by excluding evidence that is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.” Indiana Ins. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). Courts should rarely grant motions in limine that “exclude broad categories of evidence.” Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). The “better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility when they arise.” Id.

         IV. ANALYSIS

         A. The Recordings Were ...


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.