Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 1 of 25

TIMOTHY J. RACICOT
RYAN G. WELDON
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorney’s Office
P.O. Box 8329
Missoula, MT 59807
105 E. Pine, 2nd Floor
Missoula, MT 59802
Phone: (406) 542-8851
FAX: (406) 542-1476
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CR 20-32-M-DWM

Plaintiff, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF UNITED

STATES’ MOTION IN LIMINE
vs.

MATTHEW ANTHONY
MARSHALL,

Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

In 2012, Matthew Anthony Marshall emailed the victim in this case, John

Doe, to make his introduction. They met in person in 2013 and formed a business

relationship and a friendship. Marshall told John Doe he was a former member of

1
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 2 of 25

an elite Force Reconnaissance unit in the United States Marine Corps and a former

CIA Agent. Those claims, which were extremely important to the formation of

his relationships with John Doe, are wholly inaccurate. In reality, Marshall, who

enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on September 28, 1994, “accumulated 82

unexcused absences from inactive duty training during the period of 6 June 1997

through 6 June 1999.” He was subsequently discharged Under Other than

Honorable Conditions and he was not recommended for reenlistment.

As for his claims about the CIA, Marshall said he reported directly to the

former Director of Operations at the CIA, but that individual has never met, nor

does he know, Marshall. The CIA has no record of Marshall serving as an agent.1

The fraud charged in the indictment arose when Marshall asked John Doe

for money to fund “off the books” missions for the CIA. The missions, according

to Marshall, generally would involve him leading assault teams to conduct rescue

and other operations in foreign countries and behind enemy lines. Based on his

belief in Marshall’s extensive military and other government experience, John Doe

agreed to fund five of Marshall’s requested missions. To date, of the $2,355,000

Marshall received from John Doe, none was spent on any claimed missions.

1
The CIA uses the term “agent” to refer to human sources who provide the CIA
intelligence information and the term “officer” to refer to employees. The CIA
has no records of Marshall ever being affiliated with the CIA, including as an
officer, contractor, or agent.

2
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 3 of 25

A grand jury indicted Matthew Anthony Marshall for one count of wire

fraud, six counts of money laundering, and three counts of tax evasion. Doc. 2.

The indictment also seeks forfeiture of the proceeds of the wire fraud and the

property involved in the money laundering. Doc. 2 at 8-9. Trial is scheduled for

March 8, 2021. Doc. 24 at 3. The motion in limine deadline is today – January

11, 2021. Doc. 24 at 3.

The United States’ motion seeks to exclude Marshall from introducing

evidence at trial that is irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and

inadmissible impeachment and character evidence under Rules 404-405, 608-609,

and 613. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 401-403, 404-405, 608-609. This case

involves the simple task of following the money – i.e., (1) a fraud; (2) the

laundering of money after the fraud; and, (3) the filing of false tax returns. The

United States files this motion in limine to preclude the admission of irrelevant and

otherwise inadmissible evidence, all of which can be reduced to four categories.2

2
The instant motion is narrowly tailored to address issues pertaining to the victim
in this case. The government understands that the defendant intends to file a
notice pursuant to Section 5 of the Classified Information Procedures Act outlining
certain classified facts he intends to disclose in his defense. The government
suspects this information relates to the defendant’s unsubstantiated claim that he
once worked for the CIA. To date, the government has seen no evidence that the
defendant would have ever been privy to classified information and, in fact, has
confirmed that the defendant has never been employed by the CIA. Nonetheless,
once the defendant has alerted the government to these alleged classified facts, and
the government confirms they are not supported by evidence, the government

3
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 4 of 25

Communications and activities related to lawsuits and other legal

proceedings involving John Doe, including but not limited to
proceedings involving Bryan Nash;

Information about John Doe’s romantic relationships, including but

not limited to information concerning Doe’s lawsuit with an ex-
girlfriend and communications, primarily text messages between Doe
and Marshall, some of which include pictures of women in various
states of undress, discussing their respective intimate relationships;

Information about John Doe’s taxes; and,

Information related to John Doe’s relationship and involvement with

Shane Erickson, a former employee of the Whitefish Police
Department.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Marshall meets John Doe, and they form a business relationship.

In January of 2012, Marshall sent an introductory email to John Doe. After

exchanging a few messages, Marshall and John Doe met in person in January

2013, at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas.3 During that in-person introduction,

Marshall claimed he was recruited into the CIA because he was in an elite 1st

Force Reconnaissance unit with the U.S. Marine Corps. According to Marshall,

this interaction with the CIA in the first Gulf War led to Marshall’s eventual

likely will file an additional motion in limine as to the irrelevance and unclassified
nature of the defendant’s proffered information.
3
SHOT is an acronym for Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, and it is an
annual trade show for the shooting, hunting, and firearms industry.

4
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 5 of 25

employment with the CIA. Marshall claimed to be the CIA equivalent of an

Army Colonel, said he ran an 80-man team, and that he had a $20,000,000 bounty

on his head. Marshall confirmed in a subsequent email to John Doe that he

“spent 7 days behind enemy lines being brutally tortured physically and mentally.”

These stories painted Marshall as a war hero, and greatly impressed John Doe.

A week after they met at the SHOT Show, Marshall sent John Doe prayer

beads that he allegedly removed from the body of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Those

prayer beads, and Marshall’s representations about what they symbolized in the

global war on terror, deeply moved John Doe. The investigation uncovered,

however, that Marshall was not involved with the recovery of al-Zarqawi’s body,

which casts significant suspicion on the origin of the prayer beads.

In February 2013, John Doe flew Marshall to Montana for a “job interview.”

This involved the formation of a new company, which would ultimately become

Amyntor, LLC,4 and Marshall likewise wanted to “clean up” the “personnel and

security” for John Doe. Marshall negotiated several terms of employment with

John Doe, including salary, vehicles, and housing.5 When doing so, Marshall sent

4
Amyntor, LLC, was a private intelligence company with a stated purpose of
providing intelligence training, collections and analysis, risk assessment, and
counterintelligence support for the United States. The company was formed
officially in Delaware on October 24, 2013.
5
Marshall later altered emails related to that negotiation, specifically as it related
to the home John Doe bought and permitted Marshall to occupy. Marshall filed

5
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 6 of 25

John Doe a resumé over email that contained multiple misrepresentations,

including the following:

Marshall claimed to have received a B.S. in Social Sciences from the

University of Southern Indiana, with a minor in Biology. In reality, his
transcript shows he earned 72 credits and an Associate’s degree.

Marshall claimed to have worked for the U.S. Marine Corps, 1st Force
Reconnaissance from August of 1988 to September of 1996. While doing
so, Marshall claimed to have conducted “Hostage Rescue Operations,”
“Dive Operations,” and jump operations, including “HALO” and “HAHO”
certifications. But Marshall’s military records show he enlisted in 1994
and completed rifleman training – and nothing else – prior to his Other Than
Honorable discharge in 1999.

Marshall noted that he worked for the Indiana State Police from 1996 to
1999, but failed to mention that he resigned after it was discovered he
misrepresented his prior military record.

Marshall failed to include his time with the Marion Police Department in
Marion, Indiana, which ended when he resigned under suspicion of having
committed a burglary about three years before being hired.

Marshall described working as a “Paramilitary Operations Officer-Ground

Branch SAD” from 1999 to “present,” which was March 13, 2013. The
acronym SAD stands for “Special Activities Division,” all of which is under
the CIA. Marshall, however, was not, and has never been, a CIA officer,
contractor, or agent.6

the altered messages in a civil proceeding involving the dissolution of Amyntor.

See Doc. 33.
6
To the extent the defendant seeks to rely upon his entirely unsubstantiated claim
of prior work for the CIA to construct an apparent government authority defense,
he is required by law to formally notice such defense. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
12.3. He has failed to do so.

6
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 7 of 25

Without the benefit of the investigation from the FBI and IRS, John Doe believed

Marshall was a war hero, an elite covert operative, and the consummate patriot.

A business relationship – and personal friendship – ensued in March of 2013, and

Marshall and his family ultimately moved to Whitefish to work with John Doe.

B. Marshall requests funding for “off the books missions” for the
CIA.

The business relationship between Marshall and John Doe consisted of other

ventures, but the fraud scheme alleged in this indictment addresses Marshall’s

request for John Doe to fund “off the books” missions for the CIA. On six

occasions (five missions and one bonus), John Doe provided over $2.3 million to

Marshall to fund the claimed missions. Bank records show, however, that at no

point did Marshall spend the money as he represented he would. Instead, he used

the money for, among many other things, personal expenses, loans to friends, and

vacations.

i. Mission 1 – Assault Team to Mexico

In April 2013, Marshall asked John Doe to fund a mission where Marshall

would “lead the assault team” and take out a narco-terrorist in Mexico. Marshall

claimed he was trying to keep the price below $300,000 but he felt “a lot better

bout the end result with 2 extra guys for both houses,” which required $400,000.

John Doe agreed to fund the operation and wired Marshall $400,000 on April 25,

2013. Approximately a week later, on May 4, 2013, Marshall emailed John Doe,

7
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 8 of 25

claiming Marshall needed a drink to come down off the “high” from the trip. On

July 23, 2013, Marshall sent a message to John Doe that was allegedly from the

former CIA Director of Operations, thanking John Doe (i.e., the “new friend”) for

the help.

On July 28, 2013, Marshall claimed he was giving “the guys” a $10,000

bonus. John Doe agreed to cover that cost as well, which totaled $50,000, and

wired the money to Marshall the following day.

Marshall never travelled to Mexico. He actually flew to Miami on April

29, 2013, spent $9,504.05 on lodging at the W Hotel, several thousand dollars on

food and drink, and almost $10,000 on jewelry. Agents traced the flow of money

from Marshall’s accounts, and no money was spent on any claimed mission to

Mexico. The money was spent on personal expenses for Marshall, including his

home and credit card bills. A summary of the expenditures, and the individuals

who received the money, is outlined below:

8
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 9 of 25

ii. Mission 2 – Rescue of DEA Agents

In September 2013, Marshall solicited John Doe’s involvement in funding a

covert, CIA-backed rescue mission for two DEA Agents supposedly held captive

by a drug cartel in Mexico. On September 29, 2013, Marshall texted John Doe

and said the “Personnel Recovery is probably going to happen with or without us.

I’ve been asked to help with the assault plan at a bare minimum.” Marshall

requested $500,000 and said the agents were going to “owe [John Doe] their

lives . . . literally.”

On October 8, 2013, John Doe wired $500,000 to Marshall for the mission.

That same day, Marshall texted John Doe that “[e]verything is good to go,” and

Marshall was “[g]oing off comms . . . .” Three days later, October 11, 2013,

9
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 10 of 25

Marshall confirmed to John Doe that he was “[s]afe and [s]ound.” Marshall said

“all three are safe and sound with minimal long term issues.”

Marshall was not in Mexico from October 8-11, 2013, as he claimed. He

instead was in Norfolk, Virginia, at a promotional event for High Threat

Concealment, a holster company owned by his friend, Casey Overton. At no

point did Marshall spend the money on any “mission” in Mexico.

Specifically, on October 7, 2013, Linda Colpron received $25,000, and the

memo for the check says, “Vacation Money.” Casey Overton signed a loan

agreement, dated October 28, 2013, with Marshall, and Marshall gave $250,000 to

Overton. As explained, Overton was the owner of High Threat Concealment, a

holster company in Virginia, and the reason Marshall was in Norfolk during the

10
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 11 of 25

second alleged mission. Julie Sweeney, Marshall’s friend and former fiancé,

received $15,000 for a down payment on a house and $5,000 for home

improvements.

iii. Mission 3 – “[T]ake out the number 2 guy in a group across

the border.”

In August of 2014, Marshall texted John Doe that they had a “company

funded offer to take out the number 2 guy in a group across the border.” Marshall

said he could keep it to “400 or less” for the “vacation.” Marshall texted John

Doe that he was leaving September 2, 2014, and Marshall just needed the “green

light.” John Doe wired $400,000 to Marshall on August 25, 2014.

There is no evidence Marshall left the United States for the third alleged

mission, but there is evidence he was in Las Vegas. He incurred debit card

charges between September 4 and 8, 2014, including $2,288 at Vdara Hotel and

Spa, as well as $5,202.95 at Caesars Palace. He also wrote several personal

checks to pay various bills between September 2 and 7, 2014. And he exchanged

emails with his then-girlfriend on September 3, 2014, about a Maserati, asking,

“What do you think of this car? In silver.” At no point did Marshall spend the

$400,000 he received from John Doe on any claimed “mission,” as is outlined in

greater detail below:

11
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 12 of 25

Travel and entertainment included over $58,000, jewelry and watches

consisted of $23,360, and Marshall even paid over $20,000 to friends and

associates. Frank Gallagher received $20,000 for a tax-related issue, but it had

nothing to do with any purported mission. At no point did Marshall pay any

expenses toward missions, and most of the money went toward his living expenses.

iv. Mission 4 – Strike of Syrian Terrorist Leaders

In January of 2015, Marshall requested money from John Doe for a joint

operation with the U.S. military. According to Marshall, they would use contacts

in Iraq to allow Marshall and his team to use an airbase in Kurdistan to launch the

attack. On February 3, 2015, John Doe wired $750,000 to Marshall. After

12
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 13 of 25

returning from the “mission,” Marshall claimed he lost one of his men during the

operation.

Two days after receiving the $750,000 from John Doe, Marshall booked a

private jet (using John Doe’s NetJets account) from Kalispell, Montana, to Miami,

Florida. Marshall booked his girlfriend a first-class airplane ticket to accompany

him on the trip. From February 8 to 13, 2013, Marshall made phone calls from

Miami, and debit card purchases confirm his presence in Florida. At no point did

Marshall spend the money on a mission related to the Middle East. Rather,

Marshall used money to repay debts, bought furniture for Julie Sweeney, paid for

personal travel, jewelry, investments, and vehicles, and provided another loan to

Casey Overton with High Threat Concealment. A summary of expenditures is

outlined below:

13
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 14 of 25

v. Mission 5 – Assisting Navy SEALs Behind Enemy Lines

For the final mission, Marshall asked John Doe for money to enable two

Navy SEALs to continue to conduct crucial targeting missions behind enemy lines

in the Middle East. Marshall claimed the mission would fail if John Doe did not

provide the funding. On March 21, 2016, John Doe wired $255,000 to Marshall.

At no point did Marshall spend the money assisting Navy SEALs. Instead, he

bought furniture, paid his property taxes, and loaned $132,000 to John Maguire,

14
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 15 of 25

which Maguire repaid on June 21, 2017.

C. Marshall also evaded taxes from the IRS during his tenure in
Montana.

In addition to the investigation into wire fraud and money laundering, the

IRS investigated Marshall for tax evasion. Marshall was required to report all

income he received from any source. Because he failed to report the “mission”

money John Doe provided, he owes a total of $805,462 for the tax years 2013-

2015. The amounts owed, and the corresponding counts in the indictment, are

outlined below:

15
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 16 of 25

COUNT VIII COUNT IX COUNT X

Period Ended Period Ended Period Ended
12/31/2013 12/31/2014 12/31/2015
Taxable Income as $137,903.00 $278,099.00 $243,897.00
Reported
Tax per Return as 26,693.00 70,921.00 57,369.00
Adjusted
Corrected Taxable 1,099,603.00 698,868.00 1,027,975.00
Income
Total Corrected 383,089.00 223,505.00 351,415.00
Tax Liability
Tax Deficiency $356,756.00 $153,992.00 $294,714.00

D. Marshall has defrauded others beyond John Doe.

Before and during his introduction to and solicitation of John Doe, Marshall

repeatedly made nearly identical false claims about his distinguished military and

government service career to convince two unrelated business partners to pay for

his travel and other personal expenses, including providing Marshall with credit

cards. This financial support allowed Marshall to live beyond his means and

portray himself to John Doe as a successful security contractor, lending credence to

his claims of long-time military and government service. Marshall at the time

was recovering from bankruptcy and struggling to pay personal bills, as evidenced

by financial records and emails sent and received by Marshall.

With a previous business partner from a company called LOTX, Marshall

even alleged the former CIA Director of Operations was upset Marshall had left

the CIA and would not return. According to Marshall, the CIA seized his bank

16
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 17 of 25

accounts, which explained why he needed his LOTX partner to supply money

immediately. Sympathetic to Marshall’s situation, Marshall’s LOTX partner

provided him approximately $70,000 in funding. She leased a Cadillac for

Marshall, in addition to paying his medical bills, rent, and utilities. Once he

secured a job and funding from John Doe, Marshall abandoned LOTX and the

financial assistance from his business partner ended.

Marshall also misrepresented his professional background to a second

business partner, the owner of a fledgling security company called Trilogy. This

second business partner repeatedly paid for Marshall’s travel and other expenses.

Marshall also received a credit card from Trilogy but assured the Trilogy owner the

“[o]dds are I will never use it.” By 2013, while Marshall was attempting to

impress John Doe and secure his financial support, Marshall pressured the Trilogy

owner to increase the credit card limit for the Trilogy card to over $40,000, falsely

suggesting he was promoting Trilogy to John Doe. Shortly thereafter, Marshall

charged over $40,000 on the card, including airfare, hotels, and vacations.

Marshall even used the card for shopping at stores like Louis Vuitton, Lowe’s for

$17,136.39, and other non-business related items. Shortly after securing a job

and funding from John Doe, Marshall paid off the credit card charges and ended

his relationship with Trilogy.

17
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 18 of 25

ARGUMENT

A. Marshall should be precluded from introducing four categories of

evidence at trial.

A motion in limine “is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance

testimony or evidence in a particular area.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d

1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). Importantly, only relevant evidence is admissible.

Fed. R. Evid. 402. Such evidence is relevant only if “it has any tendency to make

a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence . . . [and] the

fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.

Witness credibility is one category of potentially relevant evidence. A

witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the

witness’s “reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.”

Fed. R. Evid. 608(a). Extrinsic evidence is not admissible, however, unless it is

on cross-examination and specifically directed at truthfulness. Fed. R. Evid.

608(b). The Advisory Committee Notes explain why such a focus on truthfulness

exists: “[T]he inquiry is strictly limited to character for veracity, rather than

allowing evidence as to character generally.” Fed. R. 608, Advisory Committee

Notes (1972). Cross-examination about veracity is not boundless:

Effective cross-examination demands that some allowance be made for

going into matters of this kind, but the possibilities of abuse are
substantial. Consequently safeguards are erected in the form of
specific requirements that the instances inquired into be probative of
truthfulness or its opposite and not remote in time. Also, the

18
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 19 of 25

overriding protection of Rule 403 requires that probative value not be

outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or
misleading the jury, and that of Rule 611 bars harassment and undue
embarrassment.

Fed. R. 608, Advisory Committee Notes (1972).

Other methods to attack credibility outside the facts of the case are by way

of a criminal conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 609 or prior statements under Fed. R.

Evid. 613. District courts retain broad discretion on impeachment of prior

inconsistent statements and the admission of extrinsic evidence, “particularly on a

matter collateral to the case.” United States v. Higa, 55 F.3d 448, 452 (9th Cir.

1995). Collateral contradictions are typically on “a point not related to the

matters at issue, but designed to show that the witness’ false statement about one

thing implies a probability of false statements about the matters at issue.” Id.

If, on the other hand, one witness wishes to discuss the character of another

witness, Rules 404-406 are implicated. Character is generally not admissible to

prove the person “acted in accordance with the character or trait.” Fed. R. Evid.

404(a)(1). The defense, however, may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s

pertinent character trait. Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(B). But in doing so, the

defense may only present such evidence through opinion testimony about the

victim’s reputation. Fed. R. Evid. 405. Specific instances are not allowed on

direct examination. See Fed. R. Evid. 405. The United States may then offer

19
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 20 of 25

evidence of the same character trait of the defendant. Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(A)

and (B).

And finally, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the

jury, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid.

403. A district court’s Rule 403 determination is entitled to “great deference.”

United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128, 1152 (9th Cir. 2015); see also United States

v. Eglash, 640 Fed. Appx. 644, 647 (9th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (“The district

court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Fromdahl’s disciplinary records.

The records pertained to conduct that was unrelated to Eglash or the instant case.”).

Every defendant is entitled to present a defense, which includes the right to

confront a witness. See, e.g., United States v. Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003, 1048-1049

(9th Cir. 2018) (“[E]xclusion of ‘otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed

to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness’ can rise to the level

of a violation of the Confrontation Clause.”). They must do so, however, within

the confines of the Rules of Evidence. United States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345,

353 (9th Cir. 2010) (“While the Constitution certainly affords a criminal defendant

‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense,’ that right is not without

limits.” (citation omitted)).

20
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 21 of 25

The United States provided the above account of the charged fraud to

demonstrate why the evidence outlined below is inadmissible at trial.

i. Previous lawsuits and other legal proceedings of John Doe should

be excluded from trial.

Other lawsuits in which John Doe has been involved should be excluded

from trial. As an example, in July of 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Bryan

Nash for Interstate Stalking of John Doe. See, e.g., United States v. Bryan Gregg

Waterfield Nash, CR-19-30-M-DWM. Nash ultimately pleaded guilty to

Blackmail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 873, and was sentenced to five years of

probation. John Doe spoke at the sentencing proceeding. United States v. Bryan

Gregg Waterfield Nash, CR-19-30-M-DWM, Doc. 118. These proceedings, and

any others ultimately identified by the defense, have no bearing on whether

Marshall engaged in a scheme to defraud by claiming to John Doe that Marshall

would conduct “off the books” missions for the CIA. The United States is not

aware of any evidentiary basis allowing the admission of such evidence. Any

such proceedings, including the underlying facts, should therefore be excluded

from trial.

21
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 22 of 25

ii. Information about John Doe’s romantic relationships, including a

previous lawsuit concerning Doe’s ex-girlfriend.

John Doe was involved in previous litigation involving an ex-

girlfriend, which included communications between Marshall and John Doe.

This litigation was contentious.

Throughout the partnership, John Doe and Marshall also developed a

friendship. During such friendship, Doe and Marshall exchanged pictures

of women in various states of undress, discussing their respective

relationships with women.

These messages, and any accompanying litigation, have no relevance

to the charged fraud in this indictment. The defense is certainly entitled to

establish that Doe and Marshall were friends, but presenting graphic text

messages will not further the truth-seeking goal of trial as it relates to the

charged fraud.

iii. John Doe’s Taxes

Marshall is charged with three counts of evading taxes. Any method of

how John Doe treated various business entities and financial transactions on his tax

returns, outside of the charged fraud, is irrelevant and could lead to a confusion of

the jury on the issues before it. But see United States v. Oriyomi, 449 Fed. Appx.

681, 682-683 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (explaining Rule 608(b) allows cross-

examination of tax returns signed under penalty of perjury). The United States

22
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 23 of 25

raises this issue because it could become a trial-within-a-trial given the potential

complexities associated with John Doe’s taxes.

iv. John Doe’s relationship with Shane Erickson

The Court should not admit any evidence involving John Doe’s relationship

with Shane Erickson, a former employee of the Whitefish Police Department.

Any suggestion that John Doe attempted to curry favor from Shane Erickson to

impact any pending investigation should be excluded from trial. To do so would

lead to a trial-within-a-trial, including the necessity of calling several additional

witnesses who would not provide any evidence directly relevant to whether

Marshall committed the crimes charged in the indictment.

CONCLUSION

The United States certainly wants to ensure Marshall is able to present a

vigorous defense, but the evidence must be helpful to the jury’s inquiry.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2021.

LEIF M. JOHNSON
Acting United States Attorney

/s/ Timothy J. Racicot

Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Ryan G. Weldon

Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff

23
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 24 of 25

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Local Rule, this certifies that the body of the attached response

contains 3,991 words, excluding the caption and certificate of compliance.

LEIF M. JOHNSON
Acting United States Attorney

/s/ Timothy J. Racicot

Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Ryan G. Weldon

Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff

24
 Case 9:20-cr-00032-DWM Document 37 Filed 01/11/21 Page 25 of 25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 11, 2021, a copy of the foregoing document

was served on the following persons by the following means:

(1,2) CM/ECF
() Hand Delivery
() U.S. Mail
() Overnight Delivery Service
() Fax
() E-Mail

1. Clerk, U.S. District Court

2. Timothy M. Bechtold
Bechtold Law Firm, PLLC
317 East Spruce Street
P.O. Box 7051
Missoula, MT 59807-7051

/s/ Timothy J. Racicot

Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Ryan G. Weldon

Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff

25