USA v. Pittmann

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 22-cr-129-LM-1
Opinion No. 2024 DNH 055 P
Jeromy Pittman
O R D E R
The parties have filed various motions in limine. See doc. nos. 52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 60, 62. The court issued rulings on the parties’ motions at a hearing held on
today’s date. This Order summarizes those rulings. As explained at the hearing,
because it can be difficult to rule on evidentiary issues outside the context of trial,
these rulings are provisional. The parties should be prepared to renew any of their
motions at trial, particularly if the evidence comes in differently than described in
the motions.
• Defendant’s “Motion for Additional Time and Late Filing” (doc. no. 73)
Granted.
• Cross-motions Concerning Michael Baum’s Testimony (doc. nos. 52 and 55).
The parties’ cross-motions regarding Michael Baum are each granted in part
and denied in part as follows. Baum may testify as to the first category of
evidence discussed in the government’s motion (i.e., that Baum introduced
Pittman and CC-1, the ongoing relationship between the three of them,
Pittman’s and CC-1’s email address, CC-1’s construction company). Baum
may not testify that CC-1 solicited him to submit fraudulent SIV
recommendation letters, nor may Baum testify that he in fact submitted such
letters, nor may Baum testify that he pled guilty to a crime as a result of such
conduct.
Case 1:22-cr-00129-LM Document 77 Filed 07/08/24 Page 1 of 4

2
Because the government has conceded that Baum was not a member of the
charged conspiracy between Pittman and CC-1, Baum’s conduct is not
intrinsic to the charged conspiracy. Moreover, all of this evidence is
inadmissible under Rule 403 regardless of whether it is properly
characterized as intrinsic or extrinsic to the charged conspiracy. The fact that
Baum participated in materially identical conduct to Pittman does not make
it more probable that Pittman engaged in that conduct. See United States v.
Abdelaziz, 68 F.4th 1, 45 (1st Cir. 2023) (rejecting the argument that “the
hub-and-spoke nature of the scheme charged would, in and of itself, support a
reasonable inference that any ‘spoke’ shared a common goal with the other
‘spoke’”; explaining that “[t]he relevant question . . . is whether the nature of
the alleged scheme is such that it would be reasonable to infer that any
parents who sought the assistance of the core group shared a goal of getting
children other than their own into any university just because they sought
such assistance for their own children”). At the same time, the evidence is
highly prejudicial. The jury would hear evidence not only that Baum did
essentially what Pittman has been charged with doing—but that he also pled
guilty to a crime as a result. The jury would be left to wonder why Pittman
insisted on putting the government to its proof when Baum, a co-defendant in
all but name, admitted to the strength of the case against him.
• Government’s “Motion in Limine to Admit Certain Evidence” (doc. no. 53)
Granted in part and denied in part. Granted as to government’s exhibits 401
through 403, as Pittman does not object to the admission of these exhibits.
Denied as to all other exhibits given the court’s rulings on doc. nos. 52 and
55.
• Government’s “Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence” (doc. no. 54)
Granted in part and denied in part as follows.
o Evidence of the penalty Pittman could face if convicted – granted.
o Evidence of Pittman’s daughter’s health condition – denied without
prejudice. Without context, it is possible that such evidence could be
fair background testimony if Pittman were to testify or could go to his
state of mind.
o Evidence of humanitarian motives – denied without prejudice. While
unlikely, it is theoretically possible that that evidence of non-pecuniary
motives could be relevant and admissible. See Sperberg v. Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975) (“Courts disfavor
motions in limine seeking to exclude broad categories of evidence.”).
o Evidence of the amount of profit Pittman received for engaging in the
charged conduct – denied without prejudice. Evidence that Pittman did
Case 1:22-cr-00129-LM Document 77 Filed 07/08/24 Page 2 of 4

3
not receive much money for engaging in the charged conduct would
rebut an argument that he was motivated by financial need.
o Evidence of Pittman’s “good acts” – denied without prejudice. The court
agrees that, to the extent Pittman wishes to adduce evidence of his
own pertinent character traits, he may only do so through opinion or
reputation testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 405(a). However, that does not
mean that any evidence of Pittman’s prior conduct that could
conceivably bear on some positive character trait is therefore
inadmissible—it just means that such evidence is inadmissible if
offered only to prove a positive character trait. Evidence that Pittman
had received a commendation for prior military service could explain,
for example, how he came to serve in Afghanistan.
o Use of interview reports or rough notes to impeach government
witnesses – granted to the extent that the parties may not publish
impeachment evidence to the jury, but denied in all other respects.
“Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b) only requires that the impeached
witness be afforded an opportunity to deny or explain the prior
statement and the opposite party be afforded the opportunity to
interrogate the witness thereon, and has no requirement that the
witness have adopted the prior statement.” United States v. Catalan-
Roman, 585 F.3d 453, 464 n.12 (1st Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
While it may not be a wise tactical decision to attempt to impeach a
witness using a document that she did not prepare herself or sign, the
Federal Rules of Evidence do not bar Pittman from attempting to do
so.
o Pittman’s own out-of-court statements – denied without prejudice.
While the court agrees that Pittman’s own out-of-court statements
would not be statements of a party-opponent, it is entirely possible
that (a) Pittman could seek to introduce his own statements for a
purpose other than proving the truth of the matter(s) asserted in those
statements or (b) that some other exception to the hearsay bar could
justify the admission of Pittman’s out-of-court statements.
o Sequestration – granted to the extent the motion seeks sequestration
of all nonparty witnesses other than the parties’ designated
representatives, and denied as moot as to the government’s request
that both Special Agent Christopher Fair and Special Agent Kevin
Naylon be permitted to be present throughout the trial. At the hearing
today, the government explained that it had conferred with defense
counsel and agreed to only have one agent present throughout the
trial.
Case 1:22-cr-00129-LM Document 77 Filed 07/08/24 Page 3 of 4

4
• Cross-motions Regarding Alleged Timecard Fraud (doc. nos. 56 and 62)
Pittman filed a motion to exclude evidence that he engaged in timecard fraud
while working for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (“NGA”), and
the government filed a motion to admit this same evidence. Originally, the
government contended in its motion that the evidence was admissible both in
its case-in-chief and upon cross-examining Pittman should he choose to
testify. At today’s hearing, however, the government clarified that it would
not seek to introduce this evidence in its case-in-chief and would only seek to
do so if Pittman testified.
The motions are denied in part as moot and denied in part without prejudice
as follows. Each motion is denied as moot to the extent each motion seeks a
ruling on the admissibility of the evidence during the government’s case-in-
chief. Each motion is denied without prejudice to the extent each motion
seeks a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence on cross-examination of
Pittman should he choose to testify. The court will determine the
admissibility of this evidence to cross-examine Pittman if he exercises his
right to testify.
• Government’s “Motion in Limine to Admit Certain Evidence” (doc. no.
60)
Denied without prejudice. The court will determine the admissibility of the
government’s exhibits in the context of trial.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
July 8, 2024
cc: Counsel of Record
Case 1:22-cr-00129-LM Document 77 Filed 07/08/24 Page 4 of 4