USA v. Harris et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-105
RYAN HARRIS, ET AL. SECTION: D (1)
This Order applies to
all defendants named
in the Third
Superseding
Indictment
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Admit Statements Under the
Forfeiture by Wrongdoing Exception.1 Defendants, Jason F. Giles, the King Firm,
LLC, Vanessa Motta, Motta Law, LLC, Carl G. Morgan, and Leon M. Parker oppose
the Motion,2 and the Government has filed a Reply.3 The Court held evidentiary
hearings on the Motion on December 5, 2025 and December 12, 2025, during which
it reviewed exhibits, heard testimony from Special Agent Michael Heimbach of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, attorney Jason Baer, and attorney Bradley
Egenberg, and reviewed a portion of the video deposition of Cesar Lobo Ramos taken
on September 19, 2025.4
1 R. Doc. 227.
2 See R. Docs. 240, 262, 292, & 340.
3 R. Doc. 346.
4 R. Docs. 502, 504, 529, & 530.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 39

After careful consideration of the parties’ memoranda, the record, the evidence
presented at the December 5, 2025 hearing, and the applicable law, the Motion is
GRANTED in part and DEFERRED in part.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND5
On December 6, 2024, the grand jury in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana returned a superseding indictment in this case
charging Sean D. Alfortish, Vanessa Motta, Motta Law, LLC, Jason F. Giles, The
King Firm, LLC, Leon M. Parker, Diaminike F. Stalbert, Carl G. Morgan, and Timara
N. Lawrence with various crimes arising from a years-long scheme to stage fake
automobile collisions in the New Orleans metropolitan area and file fraudulent
insurance claims and fraudulent lawsuits based on the staged collisions.6 On April
25, 2025, a grand jury returned a second superseding indictment, charging Parker
and Alfortish with five additional crimes stemming from the September 22, 2020
murder of Cornelius Garrison, an alleged “slammer” who purportedly staged
collisions for Alfortish, Motta, Motta Law, Giles, and the King Firm.7 On January 9,
2026, a grand jury returned a third superseding indictment, charging Parker with an
additional count of mail fraud, charging Alfortish, Motta, and Motta Law with an
additional count of mail fraud, charging Alfortish with obstruction of justice and
5 In the interest of judicial economy, and because the factual background of this case was extensively
detailed 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.
6 R. Doc. 78.
7 R. Doc. 256. 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. See R. Doc. 1 in United States of America v. Cornelius Garrison, et al.,
Crim. A. No. 20-92-SSV-KWR (E.D. La.).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 39

subornation of perjury concerning a Fed. R. Crim. P. 15 deposition, and adding 11
new staged accidents to the conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud charged in
count 1 of the second superseding Indictment.8
In the third superseding indictment, the Government alleges 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.9
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 regarding the staged collision scheme.10
In the instant Motion, the Government seeks an order admitting the following
three categories of statements at trial: (1) statements made by Garrison “to law
enforcement and others” against Alfortish, Parker, Motta, and Motta Law under the
forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Federal Rule of
Evidence 804(b)(6); (2) statements made by Garrison to defendant, Ryan Harris,11
8 R. Doc. 517. See Id. at pp. 13–16, 18–19, 19–20 & 26–27 (counts 1, 3, 5, 16, and 17).
9 R. Doc. 517 at p. 3, ¶ 10 & p. 22, ¶ 2.
10 Id. at pp. 22–26.
11 On May 3, 2024, the grand jury returned the first 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 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 39

against Giles and the King Firm under the hearsay exception for coconspirator
statements set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E); and (3) statements
made by Garrison that indirectly implicate Morgan and Stalbert in participating in
staged collisions.12 The Government contends that Garrison’s cooperation with the
federal investigation into the staged collision scheme was “extensive,” and that
Garrison implicated Alfortish, Motta, Giles, Harris, and Harris’s family members in
the staged collision scheme.13 The Government claims that Garrison told federal
agents in November 2019 that he staged collisions for Giles, the King Firm, Motta,
Alfortish, and Motta Law, 14 and that he also provided information regarding
Alfortish’s role in the scheme and the attempts by Motta and Alfortish to make him
an unavailable witness.15 The Government further asserts that in pleading guilty to
his conduct regarding Garrison’s murder, Ryan Harris admitted in his Factual Basis
that he, Alfortish, Motta, and Parker learned about Garrison’s cooperation in 2020,
and that Harris facilitated a meeting between Alfortish and Parker for Alfortish to
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.
12 R. Doc. 227; R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 1. The Government notes that the remaining defendant, Lawrence,
is not implicated by its Motion. R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 1. While the Government asserts that it seeks to
admit Garrison’s statements based upon the exhibits attached to its Motion, it also claims that it will
make FBI Special Agent Michael Heimbach available for any evidentiary hearing. Id. at pp. 1–2.
13 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 5–6 (citing R. Doc. 78 at pp. 5 & 17; R. Doc. 227-5 at p. 1). The Court notes that
the Government cites to the superseding indictment (R. Doc. 78) throughout its Motion because the
Motion was filed a month before the second superseding indictment was filed (R. Doc. 256) and more
than nine months before the third superseding indictment was filed (R. Doc. 517).
14 R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 6 (citing R. Doc. 227-5 at pp. 1–2).
15 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 6–10 (citing R. Doc. 227-6 at pp. 2–3; R. Doc. 227-7 at p. 2; R. Doc. 227-8 at p. 2;
R. Doc. 227-10 at pp. 1–2; R. Doc. 227-11 at p. 2; R. Doc. 227-12; R. Doc. 227-13; R. Doc. 227-14; R. Doc.
227-15; R. Doc. 227-16; R. Doc. 227-17; R. Doc. 227-18). The Government notes that it has a video
recording of an interaction between Motta and Garrison during which Motta advised Garrison that he
would get along with his new attorney because the attorney knew about the “construction” – a
reference to the cover story Alfortish had instructed Garrison to use if anyone asked him why he had
received so much money from Alfortish and Motta. R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 8–9 & n.6 (citing R. Doc. 227-
11 at p. 2). The video was shown during the hearing.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 39

pay Parker to murder Garrison. 16 The Government points out that Harris also
admitted that Alfortish told him that he and Motta had offered to pay Garrison to
convince Garrison not to cooperate with the investigation, and that, “Alfortish, Motta,
and Parker commented to Harris that Garrison was a ‘rat’ and a ‘snitch’ and that it
would be better if Garrison were dead.” 17 The Government claims that these
statements are corroborated by statements in defendant Jovanna Gardner’s Factual
Basis,18 cell phone data,19 and the testimony of FBI Special Agent Michael Heimbach
at Parker’s detention hearing.20
With respect to the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception under Rule 804(b)(6),
the Government asserts that Garrison’s statements to law enforcement should be
admissible against Parker because there is substantial evidence showing that Parker
was involved in Garrison’s murder. 21 The Government likewise asserts that
Garrison’s statements should be admissible against Alfortish because Garrison
alerted law enforcement to multiple attempts by Motta and Alfortish to silence him,
and because Alfortish arranged for Garrison’s murder.22 The Government contends
that Garrison’s statements should be admitted against Motta and Motta Law based
upon Motta’s repeated efforts to prevent Garrison from talking to anyone about the
16 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 10–11 (citing R. Doc. 184 at pp. 4–5).
17 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 10–11 (quoting R. Doc. 184 at pp. 4–5) (citation modified).
18 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 11–12 (quoting R. Doc. 49 at pp. 2–3) (citation modified).
19 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 12–13.
20 Id. at pp. 13–15 (citing R. Doc. 227-19 at pp. 27–29, 31, 37–43).
21 R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 20 (citing R. Doc. 184 at pp. 4–5; R. Doc. 227-11 at p. 2; United States v. Hankton,
51 F.4th 578, 598 (5th Cir. 2022), aff’d in part, vacated in part, and remanded by United States v.
Hankton, 51 F.4th 578, 598–99 (5th Cir. 2022)).
22 R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 21 (citing R. Doc. 184 at pp. 4–5; R. Doc. 227-10 at p. 1; R. Doc. 227-15; R. Doc.
227-16; R. Doc. 227-17; R. Doc. 227-19 at pp. 38–43).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 39

staged collision scheme, which the Government claims demonstrated her “bad intent”
and desire to make Garrison an unavailable witness.23 The Government also asserts
that Motta and Alfortish’s romantic relationship and the fact that they worked closely
together in the staged collision scheme suggests that Alfortish’s criminal behavior
should be imputed to Motta or, at a minimum, that Motta acquiesced to Garrison
being made unavailable.24
As to the admissibility of coconspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E),
the Government asserts that statements made by Garrison to Harris during and in
furtherance of the staged collision scheme should be admissible against Giles and the
King Firm.25 Finally, the Government asserts that it does not intend to admit
Garrison’s statements against defendants, Stalbert and Morgan, but that certain
statements admitted against other defendants will implicate them in the staged
collision scheme. 26 The Government points to statements regarding Garrison’s
involvement in a staged collision in which Stalbert was a passenger and his
involvement in another collision involving Harris’s “blind brother.” 27 The
Government asserts that Harris does not have a blind brother, but that he has a blind
uncle who was a passenger in a staged collision involving Morgan.28 The Government
argues that these statements should be admissible against Parker, Alfortish, Motta,
23 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 21–22.
24 Id. at p. 22 (citing United States v. Sanders, 952 F.3d 263, 275 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v.
Hankton, Crim. A. No. 12-201, 2016 WL 10950447, at *3 (E.D. La. June 2, 2016) (Feldman, J.)).
25 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 22–24 (citing R. Doc. 184 at pp. 1–2; United States v. Hall, 500 F.3d 439, 443
(5th Cir. 2007)).
26 R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 24.
27 Id. (citing R. Doc. 78 at p. 15).
28 R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 24 (citing R. Doc. 227-7 at p. 2; R. Doc. 78 at p.15).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 39

and Motta Law because they are relevant to establishing the existence of a
conspiracy.29 The Government seems to suggest that the Court can provide a limiting
instruction to the jury that these statements are not admissible against Morgan and
Stalbert.30
Giles and the King Firm oppose the Motion, asserting that Garrison’s
statements are not admissible against them under the forfeiture by wrongdoing
exception in Rule 804(b)(6) because there is no evidence that they had any
involvement in Garrison becoming an unavailable witness.31 As such, Giles and the
King Firm contend that Garrison’s alleged statements regarding them are
inadmissible hearsay.32 Giles and the King Firm further claim that they have asked
the Government to provide any and all statements made by Garrison that it intends
to admit against them at trial, but that the Government has declined and they intend
to file additional motions to address this issue.33 As such, Giles and the King Firm
ask the Court to prohibit and exclude any use, reference, evidence, testimony, or
argument regarding any of Garrison’s alleged statements against them.34
29 R .Doc. 227-1 at p. 24.
30 Id. at pp. 24–25. The Court notes that the Government further asserts that the Court can rule on
its Motion without an evidentiary hearing. Id. at p. 25. That issue, however, is moot, as the Court
held evidentiary hearings on December 5, 2025 and December 12, 2025. See R. Docs. 269, 281, 326,
351, 421, 463, 472, 502 & 504.
31 R. Doc. 240.
32 Id. at p. 1.
33 Id. at p. 2. The Court notes that Giles and the King Firm subsequently filed a Motion for Pre-Trial
Hearing, Advance Proffer, and Ruling on the Admissibility of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements (R.
Doc. 480), addressing the admissibility of the statements at issue in the instant Motion. The Court
denied that motion on November 1, 2025. R. Doc. 480.
34 R. Doc. 240 at p. 2.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 39

Motta and Motta Law (the “Motta Defendants”) also oppose the Motion,
asserting that Garrison’s statements are not admissible against them under the
forfeiture by wrongdoing exception because the Government failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that Motta wrongfully and intentionally made
Garrison unavailable to testify at trial.35 Contrary to the Government’s position, the
Motta Defendants assert that Motta’s actions, including helping Garrison secure
another attorney, Bradley Egenberg, to represent him in a civil matter, demonstrate
her intent to ensure that Garrison was an available witness and able to provide
deposition testimony.36 The Motta Defendants further claim that Motta never met
with Harris, Alfortish, and Parker, and that she never said that “Garrison was a ‘rat’
and a ‘snitch’ and that it would be better if Garrison was dead.” 37 The Motta
Defendants then assert that Alfortish’s alleged criminal behavior and resulting
forfeiture of his confrontation rights cannot be imputed to Motta because Garrison’s
murder was not in the scope of, or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of, the staged
collision scheme.38
The Motta Defendants likewise claim that Alfortish’s actions cannot be
imputed to them based upon Motta’s romantic relationship with Alfortish and the
fact that they worked closely together on the staged collision scheme.39 The Motta
35 R. Doc. 262 at pp. 1 & 7–9 (citing Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488
(2008)).
36 R. Doc. 262 at pp. 4 & 7–8.
37 Id. at p. 8. See R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 11 (quoting R. Doc. 184 at pp. 4–5).
38 R. Doc. 262 at pp. 9–13 (citing United States v. Age, Crim. A. No. 16-32, 2022 WL 991759, at *3 (E.D.
La. Apr. 1, 2022) (Ashe, J.), aff’d 136 F.4th 193 (5th Cir. 2025), cert. denied Age v. United States, 2025
WL 3198617 (Nov. 17, 2025)).
39 R. Doc. 262 at p. 14.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 8 of 39

Defendants assert that the case relied upon by the Government for this “new
imputation theory,” United States v. Sanders, is irrelevant because it did not address
the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception set forth in Rule 804(b)(6). 40 The Motta
Defendants argue that there is no legal support for imputing a coconspirator’s acts
under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception based solely upon a relationship
between the coconspirators. 41 Finally, the Motta Defendants assert that the
Government cannot show by a preponderance of the evidence that she acquiesced to
Garrison’s murder, and further argue that the case relied upon by the Government,
United States v. Hankton, is distinguishable.42 The Motta Defendants request an
evidentiary hearing on the Government’s Motion to determine the statements at
issue, to receive testimony from the FBI agent, Harris, and Bradley Egenberg, and to
prevent the limitless admission of all statements attributed to Garrison.43
Morgan also opposes the Government’s Motion to the extent that the
Government seeks to admit alleged coconspirator statements made by Garrison
against Giles and the King Firm under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and to the extent
that the Government intends to admit statements made by Garrison that accuse
Ryan Harris’s “blind brother” of being in a staged accident.44 According to Morgan,
the Government claims that it intends to introduce statements Garrison made to
40 Id. at pp. 14– 15 (citing United Staes v. Sanders, 952 F.3d 263, 275 (5th Cir. 2020)).
41 R. Doc. 262 at pp. 15 & 16 (citing United States v. Cherry, 217 F.3d 811, 820 (10th Cir. 2000); United
States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 385 (4th Cir. 2012)).
42 R. Doc. 262 at pp. 16–20 (citing Hankton, Crim. A. No. 12-01, 2016 WL 10950447 (E.D. La. June 2,
2016), aff’d in part, vacated in part, and remanded 51 F.4th 578 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied Hankton
v. United States, 143 S.Ct. 839, 215 L.Ed.2d 82 (2023)).
43 R. Doc. 262 at pp. 21–24.
44 R. Doc. 292 at p. 1 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 23–25).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 9 of 39

Harris, including that certain of their staged collisions were directed to Giles and the
King Firm, and the Government cites a portion of Harris’s Factual Basis in support
of its position.45 Morgan asserts that the portion of Harris’s Factual Basis cited by
the Government includes a statement that Garrison and Morgan, along with others,
staged a collision on April 12, 2017, and that they conspired with Alfortish, Motta,
and Motta Law to file and pursue a fraudulent lawsuit based on the staged collision.46
Morgan objects to the admission of that statement because it is not a statement by
Garrison, nor can it be construed as being made during and in furtherance of the
conspiracy, and is instead testimonial hearsay. 47 Morgan further objects to the
Government’s intent to admit a statement by Garrison regarding Harris’s blind
brother being in a staged accident, which appears connected to the allegation in the
second superseding indictment that Daniel Harris, who is blind, was a passenger in
an accident staged by Morgan on April 12, 2017.48 Morgan argues that this statement
will be cumulative of other evidence at trial, including evidence that will be used by
the Government to establish a multi-member conspiracy, demonstrate a relationship
between Garrison and Ryan Harris, and establish that Garrison staged accidents
with Harris’s family members.49 Morgan contends that the statement should be
excluded as unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403, as constituting hearsay
within hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 805, and violative of his confrontation clause
45 R. Doc. 292 at p. 2 (citing R. Doc. 184 at pp. 1–2).
46 R. Doc. 292 at p. 2.
47 Id. at pp. 2–3.
48 Id. at pp. 3–4 (citing R. Doc. 227-7; R. Doc. 256 at p. 14).
49 R. Doc. 292 at p. 5.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 10 of 39

rights.50 Morgan also claims that a limiting instruction will not be sufficient to cure
these problems.51
Parker also opposes the Government’s Motion, asserting that Garrison’s
statements constitute inadmissible hearsay that is barred by the confrontation clause
and that the Government has not and will not be able to establish that the forfeiture
by wrongdoing exception applies to him.52 Parker argues that, to the extent the
Government suggests that Rule 804(b)(6) can be triggered through conspiratorial
liability, the Court should reject that position because that issue is res nova in the
Fifth Circuit.53 Parker also asserts that an evidentiary hearing is required because
neither the exhibits attached to the Government’s Motion nor the testimony from the
FBI agent during his detention hearing establish Parker’s responsibility for
Garrison’s murder or that he had the intent required for Rule 804(b)(6) to apply.54
Parker claims that the only direct evidence cited by the Government regarding his
alleged participation in Garrison’s murder comes from Harris’s Factual Basis, which
is pure hearsay.55 As such, Parker requests that the Court allow for supplemental
briefing on the Rule 804(b)(6) issue after all relevant evidence is adduced at the
50 Id. at pp. 5–6.
51 Id. at p. 4.
52 R. Doc. 340 at pp. 1–2. The Court notes that Parker also objects to the Court holding an evidentiary
hearing on the Government’s Motion on July 15, 2025, claiming that additional time is necessary to
prepare an adequate defense. Id. at pp. 2–3. Because the Court has since continued and reset the
evidentiary hearing for December 5, 2025, this argument is now moot. See R. Docs. 326, 351, 421, 463,
& 472. Parker also asserts that the Court should not quash the subpoena for Ryan Harris to testify
at the evidentiary hearing, which was requested by the Motta Defendants. R. Doc. 340 at pp. 11–12.
That argument is likewise moot, as the Court denied the Government’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas
(R. Doc. 333) on July 10, 2025. R. Doc. 351. Further, the Motta Defendants eventually withdrew that
subpoena request.
53 R. Doc. 340 at pp. 6–7.
54 Id. at pp. 7–11.
55 Id. at p. 11.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 11 of 39

evidentiary hearing and to ultimately deny the Government’s Motion, and reserves
his right to raise any additional evidentiary or constitutional objections to any
evidence the Government seeks to introduce against him at trial.56
In response, the Government asserts that the defendants misunderstand the
Government’s descriptions of the testimony that will be provided at the hearing and
at trial, and that the Motta Defendants misstated several important facts that will
be contradicted by video recordings that will be played at the evidentiary hearing.57
Addressing the arguments raised by Giles, the King Firm, and Morgan, the
Government asserts that it does not intend to admit Harris’s Factual Basis or
Garrison’s interview reports as substantive evidence; instead, the Government
anticipates Harris testifying at trial regarding statements made by Garrison during
and in furtherance of the conspiracy, which will be admissible under Rule
801(d)(2)(E).58 Turning to Morgan’s concerns regarding spillover prejudice caused by
the admission of Garrison’s statements against his codefendants, the Government
maintains that any prejudice will be minimal because the statements are duplicative
of evidence that will be admissible against Morgan, including Harris’s testimony, and
because a limiting instruction can be given.59
The Government further asserts that Parker’s reliance on United States v.
Thevis to argue that the Government must prove the admissibility of statements
under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception by clear and convincing evidence is
56 Id. at pp. 12–13.
57 R. Doc. 346 at pp. 1–2.
58 Id. at p. 3.
59 Id. at pp. 3–4.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 12 of 39

misplaced, as the Fifth Circuit has made clear that the standard is a preponderance
of the evidence.60 The Government also asserts that Parker’s argument that the
Court cannot rely solely on hearsay evidence to decide the forfeiture by wrongdoing
issue is also incorrect, and that the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the application of the
forfeiture by wrongdoing exception when supported by hearsay testimony from case
agents.61 To the extent Parker contends that the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception
cannot be established through coconspirator liability, i.e. because the conduct of a
coconspirator was reasonably foreseeable, the Government clarifies that it does not
seek to admit Garrison’s statements exclusively under a Pinkerton/reasonable
foreseeability theory, but that “ample authority supports its place in the forfeiture by
wrongdoing analysis.”62 The Government further asserts that the Motta Defendants’
arguments are also meritless, and that many of the factual inaccuracies asserted by
the Motta Defendants will be addressed through Agent Heimbach’s testimony.63
While the Motta Defendants claim that Motta had no reason to believe any of her
cases were fraudulent, the Government argues that Motta was warned repeatedly
across multiple lawsuits that Garrison and the Harris family might be staging
60 Id. at pp. 4–5 (citing Thevis, 665 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Hankton, 51 F.4th 578,
598–99 (5th Cir. 2022)).
61 R. Doc. 346 at pp. 5–7 (citing United States v. Gurrola, 898 F.3d 524, 535 (5th Cir. 2018); United
States v. Age, Crim. A. No. 16-32, 2022 WL 991759, at *3 (E.D. La. April 1, 2022); United States v.
Hankton, Crim. A. No. 12-201, 2016 WL 10950447, at *4 (E.D. La. June 2, 2016)).
62 R. Doc. 346 at pp. 7–8 (citing Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489
(1946); Age, Crim. A. No. 16-32, 2022 WL 991759 at *3; United States v. Cazares, 788 F.3d 956, 975
(9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 386 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Carson,
455 F.3d 336, 364 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). As explained by the Fifth Circuit, “[U]nder the Pinkerton doctrine,
a defendant can be found liable for the substantive crime of a coconspirator provided the crime was
reasonably foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Armstrong,
619 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 570 F.3d 16, 26 n.8 (1st Cir.
2009)) (citation modified) (emphasis in original).
63 R. Doc. 346 at p. 8.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 13 of 39

collisions.64 The Government also asserts that Motta’s claim that she facilitated,
rather than obstructed, Garrison’s testimony “is baffling” because her unsuccessful
attempts to block investigations into Garrison’s role in the staged collision scheme
“are well-documented.”65
On November 25, 2025, Alfortish filed an Opposition brief, asserting that he
“will present his factual arguments at the conclusion of the December 5, 2025
evidentiary hearing, as well as in any post-hearing briefing this Court may allow.”66
Alfortish claims that the Court’s ruling on this Motion “will be the most significant
evidentiary ruling it makes in Mr. Alfortish’s trials,” as he faces a life sentence if
convicted.67 Raising concerns about his confrontation clause rights under the Sixth
Amendment, Alfortish joins Parker in objecting to the use of a preponderance of the
evidence standard.68 Alfortish recognizes that this Court “is bound by Fifth Circuit
precedent,” but nonetheless preserves this objection.69 Alfortish also objects to the
application of “the imputation theory,” as briefed by Parker and Motta.70
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment provides that, “[i]n all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the
witnesses against him.”71 According to the Supreme Court, “[t]he [Sixth] amendment
64 Id. at pp. 8–9.
65 Id. at pp. 9–10.
66 R. Doc. 487 at p. 1.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Id. at pp. 1–2.
70 Id. at p. 2.
71 U.S. CONST. amend VI.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 14 of 39

contemplates that a witness who makes testimonial statements admitted against a
defendant will ordinarily be present at trial for cross-examination, and that if the
witness is unavailable, his prior testimony will be introduced only if the defendant
had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him.”72 The Fifth Circuit has recognized
that the Confrontation Clause’s goal of ensuring the reliability of evidence through
cross-examination “is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee.”73
There are, however, two exceptions to this constitutional guarantee.74 The
first is for “declarations made by a speaker who was both on the brink of death and
aware that he was dying.”75 The second, which is at issue here, is for “statements of
a witness who was ‘detained’ or ‘kept away’ by the ‘means or procurement’ of the
defendant.”76 Now codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), the forfeiture by
wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule allows for the admission of statements
“offered against a party that wrongfully caused – or acquiesced in wrongfully causing
– the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.”77 The
forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applies “only when the defendant engaged in
conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.”78 According to the Fifth
72 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 358, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (citing Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)).
73 United States v. Age, 136 F.4th 193, 227–28 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 61, 124
S.Ct. 1354) (citation modified).
74 Age, 136 F.4th at 228 (citing Giles, 554 U.S. at 358–59, 128 S.Ct. 2678).
75 Giles, 554 U.S. at 358, 128 S.Ct. 2678.
76 Giles, 554 U.S. at 359 & 367, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833, 126
S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)) (citation modified).
77 Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6). See Davis, 547 U.S. at 833, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (acknowledging that Fed. R. Evid.
804(b)(6) codifies the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine).
78 Age, 136 F.4th at 228 (quoting Giles, 554 U.S. at 359, 128 S.Ct. 2678) (citation modified) (emphasis
in original).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 15 of 39

Circuit, the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception “extinguishes confrontation claims on
essentially equitable grounds.”79 Further, “[t]he party invoking the rule carries the
burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the opposing party
wrongfully and intentionally made the witness unavailable.”80
Under the foregoing authority, the Government must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Parker, Alfortish, Motta, and Motta Law were
involved in, or responsible for, procuring Garrison’s unavailability “through
knowledge, complicity, planning or in any other way;” and (2) Parker, Alfortish,
Motta, and Motta Law acted with the intent of procuring Garrison’s unavailability as
an actual or potential witness.81 As to the second requirement, the Supreme Court
has recognized that knowledge is not sufficient to show intent.82 Other Circuits have
held that the government need not “show that the defendant’s sole motivation was to
procure the declarant’s absence; rather, it need only show that the defendant was
79 United States v. Hankton, 51 F.4th 578, 598 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S.
813, 833, 1126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)) (citation modified).
80 Hankton, 51 F.4th at 598–99 (citing Davis, 547, U.S. at 833, 126 S.Ct. 2266). See Age, 136 F.4th at
227–28 (quoting Davis, 547 U.S. at 833, 126 S.Ct. 2266) (rejecting defendants’ argument that the
district court abused its discretion by admitting statements under the preponderance of the evidence
standard, explaining that, “[t]he Supreme Court expressly did not take a position on the standards
necessary to demonstrate such forfeiture, but federal courts using rule 804(b)(6), which codified the
forfeiture doctrine, have generally held the Prosecution to the preponderance-of-the-evidence
standard.”); United States v. Gurrola, 898 F.3d 524, 534 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing authority) (“The party
offering this evidence must make this showing by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
81 United States v. Age, Crim. A. No. 16-32, 2022 WL 991759, at *3 (E.D. La. April 1, 2022) (quoting
United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 653–64 (2nd Cir. 2001)) (citation modified). See Giles v.
California, 554 U.S. 353, 361, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (emphasis in original) (“The
manner in which the rule was applied makes plain that unconfronted testimony would not be admitted
without a showing that the defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying.”).
82 Giles, 554 U.S. 353, 368, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (“Every commentator we are aware of has concluded the
requirement of intent ‘means that the exception applies only if the defendant has in mind the
particular purpose of making the witness unavailable.’ The commentators come out this way because
the dissent’s claim that knowledge is sufficient to show intent is emphatically not the modern view.”)
(citation and internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 16 of 39

motivated in part by a desire to silence the witness.”83 Additionally, the Fifth Circuit
has held that conspiratorial liability under Pinkerton v. United States can be used to
bolster a district court’s finding that a defendant caused or acquiesced in the murder
of a witness.84
As to the evidentiary hearing, the Fifth Circuit has noted that, “[d]istrict courts
are not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege when determining the
admissibility of evidence at a pre-trial hearing.”85 Thus, a district court may rely on
hearsay statements, including the testimony of FBI and case agents, in making a
pretrial determination of the admissibility of statements under Rule 804(b)(6).86
Further, while it does not appear that the Fifth Circuit has addressed the scope of
the statements that can be admitted under Rule 804(b)(6), other circuits have held
that, “Rule 804(b)(6) places no limitation on the subject matter of the declarant’s
statements that can be offered against the defendant at trial to prove that the
defendant murdered the declarant.”87
83 United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 654 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Houlihan, 92
F.3d 1271, 1279 (1st Cir. 1996)) (citation modified) (emphasis in original). See United States v.
Johnson, 219 F.3d 349, 356 (4th Cir. 2000).
84 United States v. Hankton, 51 F.4th 578, 599–600 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Pinkerton, 328 U.S. 640, 66
S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946)) (“The district court’s reference to conspiratorial liability merely
bolstered its conclusion that Telly’s imprisonment at the time Williams was murdered did not preclude
a finding that Telly caused or acquiesced in Williams’s murder. See Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6).”).
85 United States v. Gurrola, 898 F.3d 524, 534, n.14 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 104(a)).
86 Gurrola, 898 F.3d at 535 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104(a)) (“The district court was entitled to rely on
Agent Salloway’s testimony in rendering its pre-trial ruling and, consequently, it did not abuse its
discretion by admitting Carlos’s testimony under Rule 804(b)(6).”). See United States v. Age, Crim. A.
No. 16-32, 2022 WL 991759, at *4, n.16 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2022) (citing Gurrola, 898 F.3d at 535, n.14).
87 United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 653 (2d Cir. 2001). See United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921,
926 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6)] contains no limitation on the subject matter of the
statements that it exempts from the prohibition on hearsay evidence.”); United States v. Cherry, 217
F.3d 811, 814 (10th Cir. 2000) (“We therefore read the plain language of Rule 804(b)(6) to permit the
admission of those hearsay statements that would be admissible under the constitutional doctrine of
waiver by misconduct, and hold that, in the context of criminal proceedings, the Rule permits the
admission of hearsay statements by unavailable witnesses against defendants if those statements are
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 17 of 39

III. ANALYSIS
A. The admissibility of coconspirator statements made by Garrison to
Harris under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
As previously noted, the Court issued an Order and Reasons on November 21,
2025 denying a Motion for Pre-Trial Hearing, Advance Proffer, and Ruling on the
Admissibility of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements that was filed by Giles and the
King Firm.88 In that ruling, the Court denied a request from Giles and the King Firm
to hold a pre-trial hearing regarding the admissibility of statements made by
Garrison to Harris under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) pursuant to United States v.
James.89 The Court concluded that holding a pre-trial James hearing to determine
the admissibility of coconspirator statements would be impractical, unnecessary,
wasteful, and would result in a mini-trial of considerable length, given the nature of
the conspiracy alleged in count one of the second superseding indictment.90 The
Court determined that it would be more appropriate to defer ruling on the
admissibility of the coconspirator statements “until trial, at which point the Court
will be in a better position to evaluate the merits of” the parties’ arguments.91 The
Court therefore denied the Motion for Pre-Trial Hearing. The Court, however, made
clear that it would make a determination regarding the admissibility of the
otherwise admissible under the doctrine of waiver by misconduct.”); United States v. Jordan, Crim. A.
No. 3:18-CR-67-CWR-LGI-2, 2021 WL 1030996, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 17, 2021) (Reeves, J.) (holding
that Rule 804(b)(6) permits the admission of statements related to the underlying drug crime for which
the defendant was indicted and the subsequent shooting of the declarant that rendered him
unavailable).
88 R. Doc. 480. See R. Doc. 280.
89 590 F.2d 575, 582 (5th Cir. 1979).
90 R. Doc. 480 at p. 8.
91 Id.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 18 of 39

coconspirator statements during trial “whenever reasonably practicable,” as required
under Fifth Circuit jurisprudence.92
To the extent that the Government asserts in the instant Motion that certain
statements made by Garrison to Harris should be admissible against Giles and the
King Firm under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the Court will defer ruling on that portion of the
Motion until trial for the reasons stated above.
B. The admissibility of Garrison’s statements against Alfortish,
Parker, Motta, and Motta Law under Fed. R. Evid. 804 (b)(6).
During the hearing held on December 5, 2025, the Government introduced
exhibits and presented testimony from Special Agent Michael Heimbach, an FBI
agent in New Orleans assigned to the Homeland Security Task Force who
investigated Garrison’s murder.93 In addition to other exhibits, the Government
introduced 31 exhibits consisting of FD-302 Reporting Documents (“302 Reports”) and
FD-1023 Reporting Documents (“1023 Reports”) concerning interviews with
Garrison. 94 Agent Heimbach explained that 302 Reports document the FBI’s
interactions with an individual and to document search warrants, while 1023 Reports
are used for source reporting and to conceal the identity of the person providing the
information.95
92 Id. at p. 9 (citing 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).
93 R. Doc. 529, Transcript from December 5, 2025 hearing.
94 Govt Exhs. 1-31.
95 R. Doc. 529 at p. 73.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 19 of 39

1. Sean Alfortish and Leon Parker
Agent Heimbach testified that he investigated Garrison’s murder and
described Garrison as a slammer who staged car accidents on behalf of the defendants
in this case.96 Agent Heimbach described Motta as a personal injury attorney in New
Orleans, described Alfortish as a co-conspirator and Motta’s romantic partner,
described Parker as someone who participated in staged accidents and in Garrison’s
murder, and described Harris as a slammer who also participated in the murder.97
During the course of his investigation into the homicide, Agent Heimbach spoke to
witnesses, reviewed phone records, and reviewed allegations made by defense
attorneys in New Orleans regarding the staged car accident scheme. 98 Agent
Heimbach testified that he never met Garrison, 99 but that federal agents first
contacted Garrison in October 2019 when he was arrested for reasons unrelated to
the staged collisions. 100 Agent Heimbach testified that Garrison provided
information about staged accidents and subsequently became a cooperating or
confidential human source (“CHS”) for the FBI, providing historical information and
proactive cooperation.101
Garrison told federal agents that he staged accidents for Alfortish and Motta,
that Alfortish paid him with checks issued by construction companies owned by
Alfortish, and that Alfortish told him that if anyone asked about the payments he
96 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 40–41.
97 Id. at pp. 41–42.
98 Id. at p. 50.
99 Id. at p. 86.
100 Id. at pp. 71–72.
101 Id. at p. 72. See Govt. Exhs. 1–31.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 20 of 39

should say that they were for “construction” work.102 Both Garrison and his family
members told federal agents that Garrison had never performed construction work.103
Garrison told agents that the checks were issued after each staged accident. 104
Garrison also told agents that on several occasions, Motta paid him on behalf of
Alfortish for the staged accidents.105 Agent Heimbach testified that The J.A. Trust,
which owns Affiliated Management (Alfortish’s company) paid Garrison $119,000.00
in 2017 for “professional fees,” that the checks are signed by Alfortish, and that
Garrison testified in a 2018 deposition that he had not worked in three years.106
Agent Heimbach further testified that he found evidence of Alfortish potentially
concealing assets in February 2020, through his mother’s attempts to open a bank
account in the name of The J.A. Trust using fraudulent documents.107
On December 9, 2019, Garrison told federal agents that he met with Alfortish,
during which Alfortish said that he wanted Garrison to meet with four attorneys to
discuss payment for Garrison to not talk to law enforcement about the staged accident
scheme.108 Garrison also told agents that he recorded a meeting with Alfortish during
which Alfortish mentions “the construction stuff” and construction work that
Garrison did in 2017 on “Vanessa’s house, my momma’s house.”109 Agent Heimbach
testified that, based on his review of the evidence, “construction” in this context is the
102 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 74–77, 78, 82–83, &133; Govt. Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 6.
103 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 82 & 94.
104 R. Doc. 529 at p. 94; Govt. Exh. 9.
105 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 75–77; Govt Exh. 2.
106 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 108–112; Govt. Exhs. 45 & 46.
107 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 119–125; R. Doc. 530 at p. 107; Govt. Exhs. 55–57.
108 R. Doc. 529 at p. 83; Govt. Exh. 7.
109 Govt Exh. 38 at timestamp 1:25 to 6:50. See Id. at timestamp 4:10 to 4:46.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 21 of 39

cover story for payments from Alfortish to Garrison for staged accidents.110 Agent
Heimbach also testified that federal agents obtained a search warrant for Alfortish’s
Google account, and the records Google provided for the email address
seanalfortish@gmail.com show that Alfortish searched, “How far back can
government go to take your money if guilty of federal offense,” and, “How far back
can government go to obtain personal emails in a criminal investigation?” shortly
after his recorded meeting with Garrison.111
On January 9, 2020, Garrison told federal agents that Alfortish had “again”
offered to pay him $500,000.00 if he “took the fall for the staged accidents.” 112
Garrison also told agents that Alfortish and Motta had recently traveled to the
Bahamas and when they returned, Alfortish offered to move Garrison to the Bahamas
“because of the heat from the investigation into the staged accidents,” but that
Garrison had declined the offer.113 According to Agent Heimbach, federal agents
confirmed that Motta and Alfortish took a trip to the Bahamas between December
28, 2019 and January 3, 2020.114 Agent Heimbach testified that the FBI spoke to
Demetra Henderson Burkhalter, a friend of Garrison’s, who said that on or about
September 17, 2020, she overheard Garrison say that he was still owed money from
Motta and Alfortish and that they were attempting to get him to leave town, but that
he was not going to do so until he got paid.115
110 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 83–86; Govt. Exh. 38.
111 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 87–90; Govt. Exhs. 40(a) & 40(b). See Govt. Exh. 40(b) at pp. 91, 93, & 95.
112 R. Doc. 529 at p. 96; Govt. Exh. 11 at p. 1.
113 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 96–97; Govt. Exh. 11 at p. 1.
114 R. Doc. 529 at p. 97.
115 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 142–143.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 22 of 39

Agent Heimbach testified that when he interviewed Harris, Harris told him
that Alfortish and Parker were concerned about Garrison’s cooperation in the federal
criminal investigation and that Alfortish and Parker believed that Garrison needed
to be gone or killed.116 Harris told Agent Heimbach that Alfortish asked if Harris
knew anyone that could kill Garrison and that Harris arranged a meeting between
Parker and Alfortish at his automobile repair shop in Metairie for that purpose.117
Harris also told Agent Heimbach that during the weekend after Garrison was
indicted, there was a meeting at Motta Law between himself, Alfortish, and Motta,
during which Alfortish and Motta expressed concern about Garrison and Alfortish
mentioned that Garrison needed to be gone and started discussing the plot to murder
Garrison.118 Harris told Agent Heimbach that Motta was present for that discussion
and voiced no objection.119 During cross-examination, Agent Heimbach confirmed
that Harris told him in February 2025 that he met with Alfortish and Motta at Motta
Law before Garrison was murdered, that Alfortish and Motta discussed getting rid of
Garrison, and that Alfortish and Motta asked Harris if he knew someone who could
get rid of Garrison.120 Agent Heimbach also testified that Harris hold him that he
bought burner phones to facilitate Garrison’s murder, that Parker murdered
Garrison, and that Parker told Harris that he drove to Kenner and Metairie the night
116 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 143–145; Govt. Exh. 64 at p. 5; Govt. Exh. 65 at pp. 1–2; Govt. Exh. 67 at pp. 1 &
3.
117 R. Doc. 529 at p. 145; Govt. Exh. 64 at p. 5; Govt. Exh. 65 at p. 1; Govt. Exh. 66 at p. 4; Govt. Exh.
67 at p. 1. See also Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 3 (“ALFORTISH and MOTTA asked if he knew someone to get
rid of GARRISON.”).
118 R. Doc. 529 at p. 146; Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 3; Govt. Exh. 68 at p. 5.
119 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 146 & 199; Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 3; Govt. Exh. 68 at p. 5.
120 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 197–199; Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 3.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 23 of 39

of Garrison’s murder to receive money from Alfortish for the murder.121 Harris told
Agent Heimbach that he met with Parker after the murder and Parker asked him to
drive “around the block” so that Parker could dispose of the murder weapon in a
canal.122 Agent Heimbach testified that federal agents were never able to recover the
weapon from the canal.123
During cross-examination, Agent Heimbach agreed that Harris gave two
different statements regarding Motta’s involvement in the alleged plot to kill
Garrison, and testified that there were no cell site records placing Harris, Alfortish,
and Motta at Motta Law between September 18, 2022 and September 22, 2022.124
Agent Heimbach also testified that he has no evidence to corroborate that Alfortish
purchased a burner phone in connection with Garrison’s murder, that Alfortish and
Parker met at Harris’ automobile repair shop before the murder, or that Alfortish and
Parker met behind a Home Depot after the murder.125 However, Agent Heimbach
testified that Parker’s device had activity in the radius behind the Home Depot in
Metairie after the murder, and that the Home Depot was closed at the time.126
As to Parker’s alleged involvement in Garrison’s murder, Agent Heimbach
testified that Regions Bank account statements introduced into evidence by the
Government showed that Parker withdrew $39,000.00 from a savings account on
September 21, 2020, the day before the murder, leaving a balance of $1,000.59, and
121 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 146–148; Govt. Exh. 64 at p. 5; Govt. Exh. 65 at p. 2; Govt. Exh. 66 at pp. 4 & 5;
Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 2.
122 R. Doc. 529 at p. 147; R. Doc. 530 at pp. 98–99; Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 2.
123 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 147–148; R. Doc. 530 at pp. 98–100.
124 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 199–200.
125 R. Doc. 530 at pp. 40–46 & 73–75; Govt. Exh. 59.
126 R. Doc. 530 at p. 110.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 24 of 39

that he withdrew $8,287.00 from his checking account, leaving a balance of
$1,395.71.127 Agent Heimbach further testified that cell site records from phone
numbers associated with Alfortish and Harris show that their devices were located
about 0.1 miles away from each other near Networth Motors, Harris’ automobile
repair shop in Metairie, at around 12:30 p.m. on the day before the murder.128 Cell
site records and text messages show that Harris met Parker about an hour later near
a Planet Fitness in New Orleans East, 129 which Harris confirmed. 130 Agent
Heimbach testified that Harris purchased a burner phone from a Family Dollar store
later that same day, exchanged text messages with Parker, and met up with Parker
that night at the same Planet Fitness.131 Agent Heimbach also testified that on
September 22, 2020, text messages were exchanged between Garrison and the burner
phone purchased by Harris, which was used by Gardner.132 Gardner told federal
agents that she texted Garrison as instructed by Parker and Harris, and that she saw
Harris and Parker together in New Orleans East after Garrison’s murder.133
While the defense questioned Harris’ credibility during the hearing and Agent
Heimbach confirmed that Harris gave different accounts of the murder, 134 their
127 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 148–150. See Govt. Exh. 69; Govt. Exh. 70 at p. 16; Govt. Exh. 71 at p. 2; Govt.
Exh. 72.
128 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 150–154. See Govt. Exh. 73; Govt. Exh. 74; Govt. Exh. 75 at p. 3; Govt. Exh. 76;
Govt. Exh. 77; Govt. Exh. 59 at p. 3.
129 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 154–155; R. Doc. 530 at p. 113. See Govt. Exh. 59 at p. 6.
130 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 154–155. See Govt. Exh. 65 at p. 2; Govt. Exh. 66 at p. 4.
131 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 155–156; R. Doc. 530 at pp. 113–114. See Govt. Exh. 59 at pp. 7–8.
132 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 156–158; Govt. Exh. 59 at p. 10.
133 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 155–162. See Govt. Exh. 59 at pp. 9–10; Govt. Exh. 78; Govt. Exh. 79; Govt. Exh.
80.
134 According to Agent Heimbach, Harris told Gardner and Travis Broadwater that he killed Garrison,
Harris then told federal agents that he had no involvement in the murder, and Harris stated in his
Factual Basis that he facilitated the murder in a scheme with Alfortish and Parker. R. Doc. 530 at pp.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 25 of 39

efforts were insufficient to undermine Agent Heimbach’s testimony that his
investigation connected Alfortish and Parker to Garrison’s murder. Agent Heimbach
indicated several times during the hearing that he did not believe that Harris was
lying to federal agents, explaining that, “as we interview Ryan Harris, we get more
and more information. I can’t speak to how his memory works.”135 Agent Heimbach
further testified that, “Ryan Harris has pleaded guilty to his role in the homicide. We
obviously think Mr. Alfortish is involved as well.”136 Agent Heimbach also testified
that he believes Parker went alone to Garrison’s home on the night that he was
murdered.137
2. The Motta Defendants
During the evidentiary hearing, the Government presented evidence showing
that Motta was confronted with information indicating that some of the collisions for
which she pursued lawsuits were staged. 138 The Government introduced text
messages exchanged between Motta and attorney Jason Baer between November
2018 and April 2019, advising Motta that defense attorneys believed certain collisions
were staged.139 The Government also introduced recorded meetings and phone calls
between Motta with two individuals regarding staged collisions and an affidavit from
a third individual who recanted accusing one of the other individuals of being
63–65. Agent Heimbach further testified that, “[t]here’s been variations, but largely the story has
been the same.” R. Doc. 530 at p. 63.
135 R. Doc. 530 at pp. 95–96 & 101.
136 Id. at p. 96.
137 Id.
138 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 42–71.
139 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 42–55 & 67–71; Govt. Exh. 88.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 26 of 39

involved in staged collisions. 140 The Government also presented several video
recordings of a meeting between Garrison, Motta, Bradley Egenberg, and one of
Egenberg’s associates that took place at Egenberg’s office in January 2020, during
which Egenberg agreed to represent Garrison in connection with a deposition
subpoena he had received.141 While the Motta Defendants have argued that Motta
set up this meeting to ensure Garrison had representation for a deposition for which
he was subpoenaed, Egenberg testified during cross-examination that he did not
perceive Motta as wanting to facilitate Garrison’s testimony, and that they discussed
quashing the subpoena.142 One of the video recordings played by the Government
shows an interaction between Motta and Garrison while in an elevator on their way
to Egenberg’s office, during which Motta tells Garrison that Egenberg knows about
“the construction.”143 Agent Heimbach testified that this was a reference to the cover
story used for the payments for staged accidents.144
Garrison gave varying accounts to federal agents regarding whether Motta
knew that the collisions were staged. In October 2019, Garrison told agents that
Motta did not know that the collisions were staged, but he told agents in November
2019 that Motta may not have known that they were staged, but that she probably
knew “as of this interview.”145 On December 20, 2019, Garrison told agents that
140 The three individuals are Tiffany Turner, Charlette Jones, and Marlene Kennedy. See R. Doc. 529
at pp. 55–67; Govt. Exhs. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, & 37.
141 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 103–108; Govt. Exhs. 18, 44A, 44B, & 44C.
142 R. Doc. 530 at p. 129.
143 Govt. Exh. 44C.
144 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 107–108.
145 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 73–76 & 183–186; Govt. Exh. 1 at pp. 1–2.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 27 of 39

Motta knew the collisions were staged from the start, 146 and he told agents on
January 24, 2020 that Motta knew the collisions were staged because there were so
many. 147 When asked about the apparent contradiction between Garrison’s
statements, Agent Heimbach testified that Garrison told agents that he was initially
trying to protect Motta due to her sick child.148 When pressed on this issue, Agent
Heimbach stated that the agent who dealt directly with Garrison told him that
Garrison said he felt bad for Motta.149 Agent Heimbach further testified that Harris
told him that Motta knew the collisions were staged, and further stated that Motta
called him via Facetime after Garrison was indicted and told him to contact her using
Facetime because the call would not appear on their phone records.150
The Government asserts in its Motion that Motta’s persistent efforts to prevent
Garrison from talking to anyone about the staged collision scheme demonstrates her
intent to make Garrison an unavailable witness.151 The Government further asserts
that, “[a]t a minimum, Motta’s history of obstructive behavior with Garrison and her
close relationship to Alfortish establish that she acquiesced to Garrison’s being made
unavailable.”152 Counsel for the Motta Defendants argued during the December 12,
146 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 95–96; Govt. Exh. 10 at p. 2.
147 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 101–102; Govt. Exh. 16 at p. 2.
148 R. Doc. 529 at pp.75 & 183–184.
149 Id. at p. 184.
150 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 143 & 145–146; Govt. Exh. 64 at p. 3; Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 3; Govt. Exh. 68 at pp.
3 & 5. See Govt. Exh. 66 at p. 3 (“MOTTA and ALFORTISH had to know the crashes were staged
because HARRIS would let them know he would be back with another case before the crash even
happened.”); Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 1 (“the day CORNELIUS GARRISON (GARRISON) was indicted,
VANESSA MOTTA (MOTTA) video called RYAN.”); Govt. Exh. 68 at p. 4 (“After GARRISON was
indicted, MOTTA FaceTime [sic] HARRIS to discuss GARRISON’s cooperation with the government.”).
151 R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 21.
152 Id. at p. 22 (citing United States v. Hankton, Crim. A. No. 12-01, 2016 WL 10950447, at *3 (E.D.
La. June 2, 2016)).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 28 of 39

2025 hearing that the issue before the Court is whether Motta “acquiesced in
wrongfully causing” Garrison’s unavailability as a witness and did so intending that
result.153 Counsel for the Motta Defendants maintains that there is no evidence that
Motta acquiesced in causing Garrison’s unavailability to prevent him from testifying
at trial.154 In response, the Government asserted that, “at a minimum [Motta] knew
that he was going to be killed and did nothing.”155 When pressed by the Court, the
Government asserted that, “knowledge that a person is going to be murdered and
that the murder is related to making that person unavailable, that to me is the
definition of acquiescence.”156
To support its position, the Government relies on the statements Harris made
to FBI agents and the statements in his Factual Basis about a meeting that
purportedly took place at Motta Law during the weekend after Garrison’s
indictment. 157 On February 21, 2025, Harris told FBI agents (including Agent
Heimbach) that he met with Alfortish and Motta a few times before Garrison’s
murder, during which Alfortish and Motta discussed “getting rid of GARRISON.”158
Harris also told agents that he met with Alfortish and Motta at Motta Law a day or
two after Garrison was indicted, during which they both asked if Harris knew
someone who could get rid of Garrison.159 A few months later, on June 2, 2025, Harris
told agents that he met with Alfortish and Motta at Motta Law approximately four
153 Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6); R. Doc. 530 at pp. 204–205.
154 R. Doc. 530 at pp. 204–209 & 211–218.
155 R. Doc. 530 at pp. 246–247.
156 Id. at p. 247.
157 See R. Doc. 184 & Govt. Exhs. 67 & 68.
158 Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 3.
159 Id.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 29 of 39

days before Garrison’s murder, during which Alfortish stated that he wanted
Garrison gone and that Motta “was present for that statement but did not disagree
to SEAN’s statement.”160
Agent Heimbach testified about his interviews with Harris, and confirmed that
Harris told him about the purported meeting between Harris, Alfortish, and Motta
at Motta Law during the weekend after Garrison was indicted.161 According to Agent
Heimbach, Harris told him that Alfortish and Motta expressed concern about
Garrison during that meeting, Alfortish mentioned that Garrison needed to be gone,
and Alfortish started discussing a plot to murder Garrison. 162 Agent Heimbach
testified that Harris told him that Motta was present for that discussion and did not
object.163 Further, in his Factual Basis, Harris states that, “Alfortish, Motta, and
Parker commented to HARRIS that Garrison was a ‘rat’ and a ‘snitch’ and that it
would be better if Garrison were dead. Alfortish asked HARRIS if he knew anyone
who could assist Alfortish in killing Garrison”164
During the evidentiary hearing, the Court questioned the Government
regarding its position on Motta’s purported acquiescence in the plot to make Garrison
unavailable for trial. The Government argued that Motta’s knowledge of the plot is
sufficient for acquiescence.165 While the Government acknowledged that Motta was
“inactive” after the purported meeting, it claimed that Motta’s conduct after
160 Govt. Exh. 68 at p. 5.
161 R. Doc. 529 at pp. 143–146.
162 Id. at p. 146.
163 Id.
164 R. Doc. 184 at p. 4.
165 R. Doc. 530 at pp. 245–247.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 30 of 39

Garrison’s murder, including her FaceTime call with Harris, corroborates that she
acquiesced to the murder.166
3. The Court’s Findings
Now codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), the forfeiture by
wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule allows for the admission of statements
“offered against a party that wrongfully caused – or acquiesced in wrongfully causing
– the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.”167
According to the Fifth Circuit, the party invoking the forfeiture by wrongdoing
exception “carries the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
opposing party wrongfully and intentionally made the witness unavailable.”168 In
Giles v. California, the Supreme Court stated that the manner in which the forfeiture
by wrongdoing exception was previously applied “makes plain that unconfronted
testimony would not be admitted without a showing that the defendant intended to
prevent a witness from testifying.”169 During the December 12, 2025 hearing, the
Court pointed out that the Supreme Court in Giles indicated that knowledge is not
sufficient to prove the intent to make a witness unavailable.170 The Supreme Court
in Giles recognized that the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception only applies when the
defendant “engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did,
166 R. Doc. 530 at p. 246.
167 Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6). See Davis, 547 U.S. at 833, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (acknowledging that Fed. R.
Evid. 804(b)(6) codifies the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine).
168 United States v. Hankton, 51 F.4th 578, 598–99 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Davis v. Washington, 547
U.S. 813, 833, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), cert. denied 143 S.Ct. 839, 215 L.Ed.2d 82
(2023)).
169 Giles, 554 U.S. 353, 361,128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (emphasis in original).
170 Transcript from the December 12, 2025 hearing at pp. 249–250 (citing Giles, 554 U.S. 353, 367,128
S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (emphasis in original)).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 31 of 39

procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.”171 The Supreme Court
explained that, “[e]very commentator we are aware of has concluded the requirement
of intent ‘means that the exception applies only if the defendant has in mind the
particular purpose of making the witness unavailable,” and that, “[t]he commentators
come out this way because the dissent’s claim that knowledge is sufficient to show
intent is emphatically not the modern view.”172
Before addressing the admissibility of the statements made by Garrison
against any of the defendants in this case, the Court addresses the defendants’
arguments regarding Harris’ credibility. Following the two days of evidentiary
hearings, the Court allowed oral argument. The Government argued that it
presented corroborative evidence that supported Harris and Garrison’s statements,
while the defendants’ arguments focused on Harris’ credibility.173 The Government
conceded that Harris previously made significant inconsistent statements. The Court
recognizes those inconsistencies. When pressed by the Court specifically regarding
“how do you address the attacks that [defendants] have seemingly raised on the
credibility of Mr. Harris?” the Government first pointed out that Harris has been
consistent in saying that Motta spoke poorly of Garrison and that she wanted him
dead, including having a meeting and making such statements at Motta Law.174 The
Government further relied on “other evidence that we believe meaningfully
171 Giles, 554 U.S. at 367,128 S.Ct. 2678.
172 Transcript from the December 12, 2025 hearing at pp. 249–250 (citing Giles, 554 U.S. 353, 367,128
S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) (emphasis in original)).
173 R. Doc. 530 at pp. 198–265.
174 Id. at pp. 201–202.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 32 of 39

corroborates” Harris’ statements.175 Specifically, the Government contended that
Alfortish’s Google searches, Alfortish’s misconduct with his bank account, including
seemingly concealing assets and providing false documents, Motta’s conduct with
Marlene Kennedy, Charlette Jones, the meeting at Egenberg’s office, and the
statements that Alfortish and Motta offered to pay Garrison to move him to the
Bahamas.176 Regarding Parker, the Government relied on the financial records, cell
phone data records, and text messages to corroborate Harris’ statements.177
Harris’ credibility will be an issue at this trial. Nobody disputes that. This
evidentiary hearing is not the trial. Further, and importantly, the purpose of this
evidentiary hearing is for the Court to make a determination regarding the
admissibility of Garrison’s statements, not Harris’ statements. The applicable rules
of evidence differ and, most importantly, the standard of proof differs. With that said,
the burden of proof remains on the Government at both the hearing and the trial.
The difference is that the standard of proof for purposes of the instant Motion is
preponderance of the evidence and the standard of proof at trial, of course, is beyond
a reasonable doubt. The defendants raise significant issues as to Harris’ credibility.
The Motta Defendants subpoenaed Harris to testify at the hearing, but eventually
withdrew that subpoena even after the Court declined to quash it. Thus, Harris did
not testify at the hearing. What the Court is left with is the testimony of Agent
Heimbach.
175 Id. at pp. 202–203.
176 Id.
177 Id. at pp. 203–204.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 33 of 39

The Court found Agent Heimbach very credible. The Court further finds that
the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing, including the testimony of
Agent Heimbach, establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Alfortish and
Parker were involved in, or responsible for, procuring Garrison’s unavailability as an
actual or potential witness and that they did so intending that result. There is
sufficient evidence, at this time, to establish by a preponderance that Alfortish paid
Parker to kill Garrison, which was arranged by Harris and Parker with Gardner’s
assistance, and that Alfortish, Parker, and Harris knew that Garrison was a potential
witness in the federal criminal investigation of the staged collision scheme. Thus,
the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Alfortish and
Parker wrongfully caused Garrison’s unavailability as a witness in this matter and
did so intending that result. As such, the Court finds that all of Garrison’s statements
are admissible against Alfortish and Parker, subject to any objections to
admissibility, such as those under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 608, which will be handled
through contemporaneous objections and rulings at trial.
During the hearing, the Court asked the Government, “[t]he government’s
position is that [Motta] acquiesced in [making Garrison unavailable]; is that right?”
and the Government responded, “I think that the specific language that we have used
in the pleadings is that at a minimum she knew that he was going to be killed and
did nothing.”178 The Government then argued, “I would say that knowledge that a
person is going to be murdered and that the murder is related to making that person
178 Id. at pp. 246–247.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 34 of 39

unavailable, that to me is the definition of acquiescence.”179 The Court turns to the
hearsay exception set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6). The plain language
of that rule makes clear that the exception applies to anyone who caused – or
acquiesced in – making someone unavailable and intended that result.180 Thus, the
exception applies not only to someone who caused a person to be unavailable, but also
to an individual who acquiesced in making someone unavailable and intended that
result.
The Motta Defendants fit that definition. The Government has provided
sufficient evidence that Harris made statements regarding a meeting that took place
at Motta Law with Vanessa Motta and Sean Alfortish present, during which Alfortish
and Motta discussed getting rid of Garrison.181 Harris claimed that they both asked
if Harris knew someone who could get rid of Garrison.182 And while much of the
hearing focused on Harris’ statements, there was also evidence from Garrison
regarding Motta, namely that Motta was aware of the staged accidents and that both
Alfortish and Motta paid him for the staged accidents using funds that they said were
for construction work.183 Further, there is a recorded conversation where Motta tells
Garrison that an attorney knows about the “construction,” which appears to
corroborate payments made by Motta and Alfortish under the guise of construction.184
Thus, Motta would have a reason to not want Garrison available. This evidence, in
179 Id. at p. 247.
180 See Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6).
181 See Govt. Exh. 65 at p. 1 & Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 3.
182 Govt. Exh. 67 at p. 3.
183 See Govt. Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, & 16; R. Doc. 529 at pp. 75–77.
184 Govt. Exh. 44C.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 35 of 39

addition to the other evidence introduced during the hearing, supports by
preponderance that the Motta Defendants acquiesced in causing Garrison to be
unavailable and did so intending that result. As such, the Court finds that all of
Garrison’s statements are admissible against the Motta Defendants, subject to any
objections to admissibility, such as those under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 608, which will
be handled through contemporaneous objections and rulings at trial.
Fully recognizing the different standards of proof, the Court determines that
the Government, through the agent’s testimony and the corroborative evidence
introduced, has carried its burden by a preponderance. How the jury ultimately
weighs the testimony of Harris – or any witness – is appropriately left to the jury as
fact finder. The Court’s finding is strictly for purposes of this hearing.
C. Appropriate limiting instructions as to Morgan and Stalbert.
To the extent that the Government asserts that certain statements made by
Garrison to law enforcement that implicate Stalbert and Morgan in the staged
collision scheme should be admissible against Parker, Alfortish, Motta, and Motta
Law but not Stalbert and Morgan,185 the Court finds that a limiting instruction to the
jury is necessary and appropriate in this case. According to the Government, the
statements at issue concern Garrison’s participation in a staged collision in which
Stalbert was a passenger and Garrison’s participation in a collision involving Harris’s
“blind brother,” because Harris’s blind uncle was a passenger in a staged collision
185 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 24–25. Specifically, the Government references statements by Garrison that
concern his involvement in a staged collision in which Stalbert was a passenger and statements
regarding Garrison’s involvement in a collision involving Harris’s “blind brother.” Id. at p. 24 (citing
R. Doc. 78 at p. 15; R. Doc. 227-7 at p. 2).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 36 of 39

involving Morgan.186 The Fifth Circuit “has repeatedly stated that an appropriate
limiting instruction is sufficient to prevent the threat of prejudice of evidence which
is incriminating against one co-defendant but not another.”187 Like the Fifth Circuit
in United States v. Rocha, the Court finds that the evidence at issue here is “not so
complicated as to prevent the jury from separating the evidence and properly
applying it only to those against whom it was offered.”188 The Court further finds
that Morgan and Stalbert will suffer no more prejudice “than that which necessarily
inheres whenever multiple defendants or multiple charges are jointly tried.”189 The
Court therefore has “no reason to believe that the jury would be unable to separate
the evidence as it was relevant to each defendant.”190 To the extent Morgan asserts
that the statements in Garrison’s 302 Reports and 1023 Reports that purportedly
implicate him should be excluded from evidence at trial because they are unreliable,
they will be cumulative of other evidence at trial, their probative value is
substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Fed. R. Evid. 403, and
they constitute hearsay within hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 805,191 these objections
are overruled at this time. Such objections can and will be handled through
contemporaneous objections and rulings at trial.
186 R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 24 (citing R. Doc. 78 at p. 15).
187 United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219, 228–29 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation modified).
188 Id. at 229.
189 Id. (quoting United States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829, 834 (1st Cir. 1981)) (citation modified).
190 Rocha, 916 F.2d at 229.
191 R. Doc. 292 at pp. 4–5.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 37 of 39

D. Supplemental briefing
Finally, to the extent that Parker requests that the Court allow for
supplemental briefing on the forfeiture by wrongdoing issue “after all relevant
evidence is adduced at the evidentiary hearing,”192 that request is denied. Each
defendant was given the opportunity to brief the issue prior to the hearing and to
present evidence and question witnesses during the hearing regarding the
statements sought to be introduced under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that supplemental briefing is not
warranted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to
Admit Statements Under the Forfeiture by Wrongdoing Exception193 is GRANTED
in part and DEFERRED in part. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the
Government seeks to admit statements made by Cornelius Garrison to law
enforcement and others against Sean Alfortish, Leon Parker, Vanessa Motta, and
Motta Law, LLC under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception set forth in Fed. R.
Evid. 804(b)(6). To the extent Garrison’s statements indirectly implicate Carl Morgan
or Diaminike Stalbert in participating in staged collisions, the Court finds that a
limiting instruction to the jury is necessary and appropriate in this case. All of
Garrison’s statements on any topic can be introduced at trial, with the caveat that
any other objections to admissibility, such as those under Federal Rules of Evidence
192 R. Doc. 340 at p. 12.
193 R. Doc. 227.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 38 of 39

403 and 608, can and will be handled through contemporaneous objections and
rulings at trial. The Motion is DEFERRED to the extent that the Government seeks
to introduce coconspirator statements allegedly made by Cornelius Garrison to Ryan
Harris against Jason Giles and the King Firm, LLC under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
New Orleans, Louisiana, February 20, 2026.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 692 Filed 02/20/26 Page 39 of 39