USA v. Chowdhury et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
RUHEL CHOUDHURY and IFFAT
LUBNA,
Defendants.
ORDER
23-CR-00278 (NRM)
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions regarding the government’s
thirteen motions in limine. 	ECF Nos. 412, 424, 430, 431. 	The Court issues the
following rulings and directives.
As to the government’s first motion in limine, in which it seeks to admit certain
self-authenticating records at trial, the defendants have indicated that they will not
object to the admission of records that are properly certified or otherwise self-
authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902. 	The government shall provide defendants
with any certifications currently in its possession for records that it seeks to introduce
at trial, to the extent it has not already done so. 	The parties shall then confer to
determine whether the defendants object as to the admission of any of these records
without the testimony of a custodian or other documentation. The parties will file a
joint letter by March 17, 2026, at 11:00AM indicating whether there are any
outstanding areas of disagreement as to which records may be authenticated via
certification and whether defendants maintain that any such records must be
authenticated through the testimony of a custodian witness or otherwise. 	If there
Case 1:23-cr-00278-NRM Document 432 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
are any remaining disputes, the Court will address them at the final pretrial
conference on March 18, 2026.
For the government’s second, third, fourth, and fifth motions in limine, the
government asks the Court to make prospective rulings on certain categories of
evidence by providing “representative examples” of that evidence, without specifying
the particular records or statements it seeks to introduce. 	To aid the Court’s
resolution of these disputes, the government shall file a supplemental submission by
February 28, 2026, indicating which specific records or statements it seeks to admit
for each of its motions, and the defendants shall each file a response noting any
remaining objections to the evidence in the government’s supplemental submission
by March 6, 2026. The government’s submission shall be made in accordance with
the following:
For the second motion in limine, in which the government seeks to admit
the 911 call concerning John Doe-2, defendants concede that certain portions
of the call are admissible as present sense impressions. 	For its part, the
government concedes that certain statements in the call may be inadmissible
hearsay or excludable on other grounds. 	The government shall thus file a
transcript of the 911 call indicating which portions it seeks to introduce at trial.
(For ease of reference, the government may simply highlight the portions of
the call that it does (or does not) intend to admit at trial, or may provide a list
of the statements in narrative form.)
For the third motion in limine, in which the government seeks to admit
Case 1:23-cr-00278-NRM Document 432 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
John Doe-2’s hospital records, the government has identified a number of
representative excerpts from the hospital or medical records which it contends
are admissible as exceptions to the rule against hearsay. 	The defendants do
not appear to contest that at least some of the information in these records is
admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) or otherwise, but have indicated that
they 	may 	oppose 	the 	admission 	of 	other 	information, 	including 	certain
statements made by John Doe-2’s contained therein, which defendants argue
may constitute inadmissible hearsay within hearsay or be excludable on other
grounds. 	The government shall, in its submission, specify which portions of
the medical records containing John Doe-2’s statements it seeks to introduce
at trial (which it may do by filing a highlighted copy of the records so indicating,
or by listing those excerpts in narrative form). To the extent defendants take
the position that any portions of the government’s proffered evidence in these
records 	are 	inadmissible, 	they 	shall 	outline 	their 	objections 	in 	their
supplemental response.
For the fourth and fifth motions in limine, in which the government
seeks to introduce the statements of two alleged co-conspirators as well as non-
party witnesses, the government in its Reply submitted, for the first time,
hundreds of pages of electronic communications and transcripts of audio
recordings. The government shall specify the specific statements within these
records that it seeks to introduce at trial (which it may do by filing a
highlighted copy or by listing them in narrative form). For present purposes,
Case 1:23-cr-00278-NRM Document 432 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
to the extent that the government seeks to introduce statements as opposing
party 	statements 	under 	the 	coconspirator 	exception 	in 	Fed. 	R. 	Evid.
802(d)(2)(E), the parties need not address the issue of whether the government
has shown that the declarants are coconspirators or whether the statements
are made in furtherance of the conspiracy. 	The Court will resolve that issue
at trial. Assuming arguendo that the government meets its burden of showing
that Rule 802(d)(2)(E) applies, for purposes of its supplemental brief, the
government shall identify the specific coconspirator statements that it seeks to
introduce 	(which, 	again, 	it 	may 	do 	by 	attaching 	a 	highlighted 	copy 	or
submitting a narrative list). 	The defendants shall outline any remaining
anticipated objections (other than their claim, which is preserved, that the
government has yet to meet its burden under Rule 802(d)(2)(E)) and state the
grounds for those objections in their supplemental response.
The 	Court 	understands 	that 	the 	government 	is 	still 	preparing 	its 	trial
presentation, and the government reserves the right to introduce at trial any
additional records or statements not identified in its February 28, 2026 submission
that it cannot reasonably anticipate relying upon at this time. The Court also
understands that the defendants’ objections and the government’s responses to those
objections may evolve as the trial proceeds. However, the government’s investigation
into these charges has been pending for nearly three years. 	Thus, the Court
anticipates that the government will be able to identify the vast majority of the
Case 1:23-cr-00278-NRM Document 432 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
statements or records that it currently intends on introducing at trial, including any
statements or records that it believes may result in evidentiary disputes, and that
the defendants will be able to lodge at least some principal objections in advance of
trial based on their existing familiarity with the record, so as to allow the Court to
resolve as many of those disputes in advance of trial as possible.
The Court appreciates the parties’ briefing on the government’s sixth motion
in limine, to prospectively admit what the government anticipates will be John Doe-
2’s and John Doe-3’s prior consistent statements, but defers ruling on these issues
until trial, given that the resolution of this motion will largely depend on the trial
testimony given by each complainant.
At this time, the Court does not require any additional briefing or submissions
on the government’s seventh motion in limine, in which it seeks to introduce evidence
of defendant Choudhury’s alleged flight and consciousness of guilt.
As to the government’s eighth motion in limine, to admit evidence of the March
27 John Doe-1 kidnapping for the specific purposes outlined in the government’s
motion in limine, the admissibility of this evidence depends heavily on the nature of
the trial testimony given by John Doe-2 and John Doe-3, as well as on the defendants’
theory (or theories) at trial. 	Further, even if this evidence is admissible against
defendant Choudhury on the grounds outlined by the government, it may be excluded
under Fed. R. Evid. 403 if it risks unfairly prejudicing defendant Lubna in a manner
that cannot be cured by a limiting instruction. 	These issues are better evaluated
during trial, and the Court therefore defers ruling on this motion. 	The government
Case 1:23-cr-00278-NRM Document 432 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
shall not mention this evidence in its opening statement, and the Court will revisit
the issue with the parties at the appropriate juncture during trial.
The government’s ninth motion in limine, to exclude any suggestion by the
Defense that evidence was unlawfully obtained, is granted as unopposed.
The Court defers ruling on the government’s tenth motion in limine, in which
it seeks to limit cross-examination on John Doe-2’s criminal history. 	However, the
parties will provide a joint status letter by March 2, 2026 indicating whether there
is any outstanding discovery with respect to John Doe-2’s prior convictions. 	The
government’s request to preclude cross-examination regarding John Doe-2’s April
2023 arrest is granted as unopposed.
As for the eleventh motion in limine, in which the government seeks to
preclude cross-examination of witnesses with certain § 3500 material, the parties
(and the Court) appear to be in agreement about the applicable law and the scope of
allowable cross-examination. The Court will resolve at trial any disputes that arise
about the manner of impeachment or rehabilitation with respect to this material.
At this time, the Court does not require any additional briefing or submissions
on the government’s twelfth motion in limine, in which it seeks to exclude evidence
of defendant Lubna’s “personal circumstances.” 	The Court will address this issue
with the parties at the final pretrial conference. 	The government’s request to
preclude arguments and evidence about jury nullification or potential punishment
and collateral consequences is granted as unopposed.
Finally, as to the government’s thirteenth motion in limine, in which it seeks
Case 1:23-cr-00278-NRM Document 432 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
to order the defendants to disclose certain discovery and trial exhibits by a date
certain, 	the 	parties 	shall 	confer 	on 	a 	schedule 	for 	the 	defendants’ 	reciprocal
disclosures and any disputes as to their scope. 	Specifically, defense counsel shall
promptly provide the government with a proposed timeline for their remaining
disclosures under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 and 26.2. 	The parties shall file a joint letter
with the Court by March 2, 2026, indicating whether they have resolved this issue
and, if so, what the timing and scope of reciprocal discovery will be; if they are not in
agreement, the Court will schedule a conference to resolve any outstanding disputes.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 24, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:23-cr-00278-NRM Document 432 Filed 02/24/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>