USA v. Harris et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-105
RYAN J. HARRIS, ET AL. SECTION: D (1)
This Order applies to
all defendants except
for Ryan Harris and
Jovanna R. Gardner
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Pre-Trial Hearing, Advance Proffer, and
Ruling on the Admissibility of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements on Behalf of Jason
F. Giles and the King Law Firm, LLC.1 The Government opposes the Motion.2
After careful consideration of the parties’ memoranda and the applicable law,
the Motion is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
On April 25, 2025, the grand jury in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana returned a second superseding indictment in this case
charging Sean D. Alfortish, Vanessa Motta, Motta Law, LLC, Jason F. Giles, The
King Firm, LLC (the “King Firm”), Leon M. Parker, Diaminike F. Stalbert, Carl G.
Morgan, and Timara N. Lawrence with various counts arising from a years-long
scheme to stage fake automobile collisions in the New Orleans metropolitan area and
1 R. Doc. 280.
2 R. Doc. 322.
3 In the interest of judicial economy, and because the factual and procedural history of this case was
set out in great detail in the Court’s July 25, 2025 Order and Reasons (R. Doc. 357), the Court will
limit its recitation of the factual and procedural background to matters relevant to the instant Motion.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 9

file fraudulent insurance claims and fraudulent lawsuits based on the staged
collisions, as well as the September 22, 2020 murder of Cornelius Garrison.4 On
September 18, 2020, four days before his murder, a federal grand jury in the Eastern
District of Louisiana charged Garrison and eight codefendants in a seven-count
indictment related to staged automobile collisions in a matter styled United States v.
Cornelius Garrison, et al.5 The Government contends that Garrison began covertly
cooperating with the federal government concerning the staged collision scheme in
October 2019, and that his indictment contained information that he provided over
the course of his cooperation in the federal criminal investigation.6 The Government’s
theory in this case, at least with respect to Garrison’s murder, is that Alfortish and
Parker conspired to murder Garrison in retaliation for his past cooperation with law
enforcement and to prevent him from otherwise cooperating with law enforcement.7
In the instant Motion, Giles and the King Firm request a pre-trial evidentiary
hearing to determine the admissibility of coconspirator statements that were made
by Garrison to defendant, Ryan Harris,8 under the hearsay exception set forth in
4 R. Doc. 256.
5 See R. Doc. 1 in United States of America v. Cornelius Garrison, et al., Crim. A. No. 20-92-SSV-KWR
(E.D. La.) (hereafter, the Garrison matter”).
6 R. Doc. 256 at p. 3, ¶ 10 & p. 20, ¶ 3.
7 Id. at pp. 20–23.
8 On May 3, 2024, the grand jury returned an indictment in this case, initially under seal, charging
Ryan J. Harris and Jovanna R. Gardner in a five-count indictment related to the staged automobile
collisions and Garrison’s murder. R. Doc. 1. The Government filed a superseding bill of information
for conspiracy to commit witness tampering as to Gardner on June 18, 2024, and she entered a guilty
plea that same day. R. Docs. 45 & 46. Gardner is currently awaiting sentencing. R. Doc. 447. On
December 6, 2024, the Government filed a ten-count superseding indictment charging Harris,
Alfortish, Motta, Motta Law, Giles, the King Firm, Parker, Stalbert, Morgan, and Lawrence with
various crimes related to the staged automobile collision scheme and Garrison’s murder. R. Doc. 78.
On January 13, 2025, the Government filed a superseding bill of information as to Harris, charging
him with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, wire fraud, and causing death through the use of
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 9

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).9 Giles and the King Firm claim that they have
requested that the Government provide any statements by Garrison that it intends
to admit at trial against them, but that the Government has denied that request.10
Giles and the King Firm point out that the district court decides preliminary
questions as to the admissibility of evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) and (c), and
that a pre-trial hearing will avoid substantial prejudice to the defendants.11 Giles
and the King Firm contend that a pre-trial hearing will afford them the opportunity
to present any evidence in rebuttal of the conspiracy presented by the Government
and will promote the conservation of judicial resources.12
Giles and the King Firm further assert that at the pre-trial hearing, the
Government has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) a
conspiracy existed as alleged in count one of the second superseding indictment; (2)
Giles and the coconspirator whose statements are being offered against him were
members of the alleged conspiracy at the time the declaration was made; and (3) the
statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.13
Giles and the King Firm claim that a declarant’s statements, alone, cannot satisfy
the preponderance of the evidence standard and that there must be some independent
a firearm. R. Doc. 180. Harris entered a guilty plea as to all three counts of the superseding bill of
information on January 16, 2025 and is awaiting sentencing. R. Docs. 182 & 395.
9 R. Doc. 280. Although not mentioned in their Motion, Giles and the King Firm filed this Motion in
response to the Government’s Motion to Admit Statements Under the Forfeiture by Wrongdoing
Exception (R. Doc. 227), wherein the Government seeks to introduce at trial, among other things,
statements made by Garrison to Harris pursuant to the hearsay exception in Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
See R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 22–24.
10 R. Doc. 280-1 at p. 2.
11 Id.
12 Id. at p. 3.
13 Id. (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 107 S.Ct. 2775 (1987)).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 9

corroboration to support admission.14 Giles and the King Firm assert that the Court
should require the Government to provide the alleged coconspirator statements and
prove that the requirements for admission exist before admitting any of the
statements.15 Giles and the King Firm further assert that evidence admissible under
Rule 801(d)(2)(E) may nonetheless be inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment’s
confrontation clause or under Fed. R. Evid. 403.16
The Government argues that the Motion should be denied because holding an
unnecessary and time-consuming pre-trial hearing is impractical and wasteful, as it
would require the Court to hear much of the trial evidence twice.17 The Government
avers that Garrison was a slammer who directed passengers to Giles and the King
Firm, among others, and that Giles also paid slammers, Damian Labeaud and
Roderick Hickman, to bring staged collisions to the King Firm.18 The Government
claims that the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. James that coconspirators’
statements are admissible under the hearsay exception in Rule 801(d)(2)(E) only if
substantial independent evidence of a conspiracy exists.19 The Government contends
that the Fifth Circuit has further held that, “[a] James hearing, conducted outside
the presence of the jury, is one potential method by which the district court may
ensure the government can satisfy the predicate facts needed to prove the conspiracy
14 R. Doc. 280-1 at p. 4 (quoting United States v. Diaz, 670 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2020)) (citation modified).
15 R. Doc. 280-1 at p. 4.
16 Id. at p. 5.
17 R. Doc. 322 at p. 1.
18 Id. at pp. 1–2 (citing R. Doc. 256 at pp. 2–6).
19 R. Doc. 322 at p. 2 (citing James, 590 F.2d 575, 581 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 9

independent [sic] the statements.”20 The Government points out that the Fifth
Circuit has approved the deferral of a James ruling until the close of the government’s
case.21 The Government asserts that the instant Motion requesting a James hearing
should be denied because the Court can review challenges to the admission of
coconspirator statements after hearing the evidence at trial.22 The Government
contends that district courts in this Circuit routinely deny requests for pre-trial
James hearings because they would be unnecessary and time-consuming mini-
trials.23
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is “a statement that: (1) the
declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a
party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.”24
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) further provides that a statement is not
hearsay if it is offered against an opposing party and “was made by the party’s
coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”25 The Fifth Circuit has
held that to introduce a coconspirator statement, the government must prove by a
20 R. Doc. 322 at p. 2 (quoting United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561, 576 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing
James, 590 F.2d at 581)).
21 R. Doc. 322 at p. 3 (citing United States v. Fragoso, 978 F.2d 896, 900 (5th Cir. 1992)).
22 R. Doc. 322 at p. 3.
23 Id. (citing United States v. Fatty, Crim. A. No. 17-161, 2018 WL 2219387, at *2 (E.D. La. May 15,
2018) (Africk, J.); United States v. Stroud, Crim. A. No. 3:19-CR-00439-X, 2022 WL 1063029, at *2
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2022) (Starr, J.); United States v. Fleifel, Crim. A. No. 3:12-CR-318-D(3), 2014 WL
663309 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2014) (Fitzwater, J.); United States v. Roberts, Crim. A. No. 4:20-cr-00314,
2022 WL 17834053, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2022) (Mazzant, J.); United States v. Dahab, Crim. A. No.
1:08cr29-HSO-JMR, 2008 WL 2061149, at *2 (S.D. Miss. May 8, 2008) (Ozerden, J.)).
24 Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
25 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 9

preponderance of the evidence: (1) the existence of the conspiracy; (2) the statement
was made by a coconspirator of the party; (3) the statement was made during the
course of the conspiracy; and (4) the statement was made in furtherance of the
conspiracy.26 The admissibility of coconspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)
is a preliminary question for the court to decide.27
In United States v. James, the Fifth Circuit held that, “[t]he district court
should, whenever reasonably practicable, require the showing of a conspiracy and of
the connection of the defendant with it before admitting declarations of a
coconspirator.”28 The James court further held, however, that, “[i]f it determines it
is not reasonably practical to require the showing to be made before admitting the
evidence, the court may admit the statement subject to being connected up.”29 As
explained in United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, “[i]n James we held that the district
court should require the government to establish a Rule 801(d)(2)(E) predicate before
admitting coconspirator statements, unless the court finds that order of proof
impractical. In that event, the court may conditionally admit the statement subject
to a subsequent final determination.”30 As noted by the Fifth Circuit in Gonzalez-
Balderas, “[w]e have approved deferral of a James ruling until the close of the
government’s case.”31
26 United States v. Hall, 500 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Cornett, 195 F.3d
776, 782 (5th Cir. 1999)).
27 Fed. R. Evid. 104(a). See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2778, 97
L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)).
28 James, 590 F.2d 575, 582 (5th Cir. 1979).
29 Id.
30 11 F.3d 1218, 1224 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing James, 590 F.2d 575; United States v. Fragoso, 978 F.2d
896 (5th Cir. 1992)).
31 Gonzalez-Balderas, 11 F.3d at 1224 (citing Fragoso, 978 F.2d 896).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 6 of 9

The Fifth Circuit has further held that, “[a] James hearing, conducted outside
the presence of the jury, is one potential method by which the district court may
ensure the Government can satisfy the predicate facts needed to prove the conspiracy
independent of the statements.”32 Notably, the Fifth Circuit has held that, “James
has never required a hearing outside the presence of the jury.”33 Instead, the Fifth
Circuit “has approved district courts’ practice of carrying a James motion through
trial or at least through presentation of the government’s case until a determination
of the existence of the Rule 801(d)(2)(E) predicate facts can be appropriately made.”34
The Fifth Circuit has made clear that whether express findings on admissibility
should be made before the coconspirator statements are introduced and whether a
James hearing is necessary are matters left to the discretion of the trial court.35
In the instant case, Giles and the King Firm have not presented the Court with
any reason, much less a compelling reason, that would necessitate holding a pre-trial
James hearing.36 Giles and the King Firm assert, without explanation, that a James
hearing “will avoid substantial prejudice to the defendants”37 and “will promote
32 United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561, 576 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Fragoso, 978 F.2d at 900)
(emphasis added).
33 Fragoso, 978 F.2d at 899.
34 Id. at 900 (citing authority).
35 See Williams, 264 F.3d at 576 (citing Fragoso, 978 F.2d at 900); Fragoso, 978 F.2d at 900 (citing
United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977)).
36 See United States v. Roberts, Crim. A. No. 4:20-cr-00314, 2022 WL 17834053, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Dec.
21, 2022) (“In this case, the Court finds that Roberts has not provided a compelling reason to hold a
pretrial James hearing.”); United States v. Dahab, Crim. A. No. 1:08cr29-HSO-JMR, 2008 WL
2061149, at *2 (S.D. Miss. May 8, 2008) (“Furthermore, Defendant’s Motion does not present any
compelling reason to hold a pre-trial James hearing.”); United States v. Ho, Crim. A. No. 01-069, 2001
WL 487379, at *2 (E.D. La. May 7, 2001) (Porteous, J.) (“In the present case, the Defendant’s Motion
does not present this Court with any reason that would necessitate holding a pre-trial James
hearing.”).
37 R. Doc. 280-1 at p. 2.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 7 of 9

conservation of judicial resources.”38 Giles and the King Firm also assert that a
James hearing will afford them “the opportunity to present any evidence in rebuttal
of the conspiracy which is presented by the Government before the Court rules,”39
seemingly ignoring the fact that they will have the opportunity to present any such
evidence at trial. The conspiracy purportedly involves the nine named defendants
and at least five named individuals and seven unnamed individuals, and allegedly
occurred over a 13-year period.40 The Court anticipates that Giles and the King Firm
will insist that the Government make a showing of the predicate elements through
the witnesses that the Government intends to call to testify at trial. The Court finds
that a James hearing would be impractical, unnecessary, and wasteful in this case,
as it “would require the Court to hear much of the trial evidence twice, and it would
potentially lead to the revelation of the names of government witnesses that may be
placed in danger before those witness’s names must necessarily be revealed.”41 Thus,
such a hearing at this juncture pre-trial would result in a mini-trial, resulting in
expending additional judicial resources. The Court is especially concerned about the
safety of the Government’s witnesses in light of the circumstances surrounding this
case and the murder of Cornelius Garrison.
38 Id. at p. 3.
39 Id.
40 Id. at pp. 2–3 & 4–6. The named individuals include Ryan Harris, Danny Patrick Keating, Cornelius
Garrison, Damian Labeaud, and Roderick Hickman. The unnamed individuals include Attorney C,
Attorney D, Attorney E, Attorney F, Slammer G, Slammer H, and Slammer I.
41 United States v. Morgan, Crim. A. No. 01-232, 2002 WL 1159706, at *2 (E.D. La. May 30, 2002)
(Vance, J.). See United States v. Fatty, Crim. A. No. 17-161, 2018 WL 2219387, at *2 (E.D. La. May
15, 2018) (quoting Morgan, Crim. A. No. 01-232, 2002 WL 1159706).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 8 of 9

The Court agrees with its sister court that, “[t]he government is not obligated
in a conspiracy case involving Rule 801(d)(2)(E) evidence to participate in a form of
elaborate pretrial discovery conducted under the guise of requiring that it satisfy the
predicate facts needed to prove the admissibility of coconspirator statements.”42
Instead, the Court finds that the best course of action is to defer the arguments of
Giles and the King Firm concerning the alleged coconspirator statements until trial,
at which point the Court will be in a better position to evaluate the merits of those
arguments.43 As such, the Court denies the Motion. In doing so, the Court recognizes
that, during trial, it must “whenever reasonably practicable, require the showing of
a conspiracy and of the connection of the defendant with it [pursuant to Rule
801(d)(2)(E)] before admitting declarations of a coconspirator.”44 The Court will
adhere to these requirements in trying this case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Pre-Trial
Hearing, Advance Proffer, and Ruling on the Admissibility of Alleged Co-Conspirator
Statements on Behalf of Jason F. Giles and the King Law Firm, LLC45 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 21, 2025.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
42 United States v. Fleifel, Crim. A. No. 3:12-CR-318-D(3), 2014 WL 6633049, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24,
2014) (Fitzwater, J.).
43 Fatty, Crim. A. No. 17-161, 2018 WL 2219387 at *2 (quoting United States v. Wijetunge, Crim. A.
No. 15-144, 2016 WL 1089344, at *6 (E.D. La. Mar. 21, 2016) (Africk, J.)) (citation modified).
44 United States v. Fragoso, 978 F.2d 896, 900 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. James, 590
F.2d 575, 582 (5th Cir. 1979)) (citation modified).
45 R. Doc. 280.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 480 Filed 11/21/25 Page 9 of 9