USA v. Carney, et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 5:25-CR-50005-001 & -002
JASON BOYD CARNEY and
LACEY CHRISTINA CARNEY 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court are the Government’s Second, Third (as supplemented), and
Fourth Motions in Limine (Docs. 97, 98, 99, 162). Defendant Jason Boyd Carney filed
Responses in Opposition to the Second Motion and Third Motions (Docs. 132, 133, 163)
but did not respond to the Fourth Motion. Defendant Lacey Christina Carney did not
respond at all.
I. Second Motion In Limine – Advice-of-Counsel Evidence
The Second Motion in Limine seeks to preclude Defendants from offering evidence
or argument regarding an advice-of-counsel defense. Mr. Carney responds that he has
no intention of arguing such a defense or requesting a related jury instruction. At the same
time, he asks that the Court not limit any witness from testifying truthfully if they took or
refrained from taking a particular action based on advice of counsel.
The Court agrees with the Government that advice-of-counsel evidence is likely to
only be relevant in the context of a proper good-faith defense. According to the
Government, it has not received notice of such a defense, much less reciprocal discovery
on this topic. More recently, though, Mr. Carney has submitted a proposed good-faith jury
instruction as a theory of defense to the tax counts—to which the Government objects.
The Motion (Doc. 97) is therefore GRANTED IN PART––counsel may not mention or
Case 5:25-cr-50005-TLB Document 165 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
elicit advice-of-counsel evidence outside the context of a proper good faith defense; and
DEFERRED IN PART until such time as counsel can proffer the evidence and tie it to a
proper good-faith defense. See Eighth Circuit Model Instructions – Criminal 9.08A, 9.08B,
and 9.09. Any such proffer must also demonstrate compliance with any required
reciprocal discovery obligations.
III. Third Motion in Limine – Bank Records and Electronic Communications
The Third Motion in Limine constitutes notice to Defendants of the Government’s
intent to admit various records of regularly conducted activity under Federal Rules of
Evidence 803(6) and 902(11) and certified data copied from an electronic device or
storage medium under Rule 902(14). In response to the bank records issue, Mr. Carney
agrees and stipulates to the authenticity and admissibility of all bank records listed in the
Motion––except those of the Standard Bank of Malawi Limited, which is the subject of a
separate motion in limine. He further stipulates to the admissibility of records from
specifically identified retailers, charitable organizations, and other businesses. See Doc.
163, p. 2. 	Regarding electronic communications, Mr. Carney stipulates to the self-
authenticating nature of such records, however he reserves the right to object to
admissibility on other grounds, such as relevance, hearsay, and unfair prejudice.
The Third Motion in Limine (Doc. 98) is therefore GRANTED IN PART AND
DEFERRED IN PART. 	All bank records identified in the Motion will be deemed
admissible except for the records of the Standard Bank of Malawi—whose admissibility
is contested and will be resolved at a later date, if not at the time of trial. Likewise, the
records of the other identified businesses and organizations are deemed admissible
without objection. The electronic evidence from Mr. Carney’s cell phone is stipulated to
Case 5:25-cr-50005-TLB Document 165 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
be authentic and generally admissible under Rule 902 without a sponsoring witness, but
the Court will reserve its ruling on the evidence’s overall admissibility until such time as it
is presented at trial.
III. Fourth Motion in Limine – IRS Civil Assessment
The Fourth Motion in Limine seeks to exclude all evidence related to the civil tax
assessment levied against the Carneys for information omitted from their 2018 filed tax
return. The Motion (Doc. 99) is unopposed and therefore GRANTED.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s Second Motion in Limine
(Doc. 97) is GRANTED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART; the Government’s Third
Motion in Limine (Doc. 98) is GRANTED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART; and the
Government’s Fourth Motion in Limine (Doc. 99) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 5 th day of May, 2026.
____________________________________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cr-50005-TLB Document 165 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>