USA v. Faria

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MYRNA FARIA,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the United States’ Motion in
Limine, (Docket No. 112), and Defendant’s Omnibus Motion in Limine,
(Docket No. 124). For the reasons stated herein, the United States’
Motion in Limine is GRANTED; and Defendant’s Omnibus Motion in
Limine is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2024, Defendant Myrna Faria (“Defendant”) was
indicted by a grand jury for one count of Theft of Government
Property, under 18 U.S.C. § 641; eight counts of Mail Fraud, under
18 U.S.C. § 1341; four counts of Misuse of Social Security Number,
under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(8); and four counts of Aggravated Identity
Theft, under 18 U.S.C. § 102A. (Docket No. 3).
On September 11, 2025, a Superseding Indictment was returned,
charging Defendant with one count of Theft of Government Property,
under 18 U.S.C. § 641; eight counts of Mail Fraud, under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1341; four counts of Misuse of Social Security Number, under 42
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 10

2 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
U.S.C. § 408(a)(8); four counts of Aggravated Identity Theft, under
18 U.S.C. § 102A; and six counts of Wire Fraud, under 18 U.S.C. §
1343. (Docket No. 81).
In anticipation of the scheduled jury trial, the United States
submitted its Motion in Limine, with the following requests for
this Court. First, for the Court to proscribe Defendant from
introducing an insanity defense and evidence of any alleged mental
condition. Second, for the Court to allow the United States to
present evidence of the Social Security benefit payments that were
allegedly deposited in Defendant’s personal bank accounts, as
overt acts allegedly taken by Defendant in furtherance of the
purported scheme to defraud by mail and wires, as charged in the
Superseding Indictment. Third, for the Court to allow the United
States to present as evidence a certification of the Puerto Rico
Treasury Department indicating that Defendant failed to file
income taxes during the relevant period. Fourth, for the Court to
proscribe Defendant from explaining to the jury the legal standard
as to reasonable doubt; from disclosing to the jury the penalties
that Defendant would face if convicted; from making arguments in
relation to Defendant’s health and needs, or those of her family;
and from making discovery requests, or comments as to discovery
matters, in the jury’s presence. (Docket No. 112).
Defendant filed, on February 19, 2026, Defendant’s Opposition
to United States’ Motion in Limine (“Opposition”), (Docket No.
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 10

3 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
125), and its own Omnibus Motion in Limine, (Docket No. 124). In
its Opposition, Defendant posits the following. First, Defendant
does not seek to present the affirmative defense of insanity, nor
introduce arguments regarding her mental health condition, hence
the Defendant requests evidence of health information be barred as
to both parties. Second, Defendant contends that the Social
Security benefit payments that were allegedly deposited in
Defendant’s personal bank accounts are time-barred and,
consequently, should be excluded from trial. Third, Defendant
argues her income tax returns are not relevant and, if deemed
admissible, would confuse the jury or generate undue prejudice.
Fourth, Defendant argues that: not allowing the defense to define
the concept of reasonable doubt may hinder Defendant’s Sixth
Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; prohibiting
the defense from disclosing criminal penalties to the jury is
overly broad; and the remaining requests for exclusion made by the
United States are premature. (Docket No. 125).
In her Omnibus Motion in Limine, Defendant moves the Court to
exclude the Social Security benefit payments that were allegedly
deposited in Defendant’s personal bank accounts as being time-
barred; proscribe the United States from arguing that the Social
Security claimants are victims; and not permit Government
witnesses from providing overview testimony on hearsay grounds.
(Docket No. 124). The Defendant further objects to the Government’s
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 10

4 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
proposed introduction of phone records reflecting alleged calls to
the Social Security Administration, on the grounds that such
evidence is irrelevant. In the alternative, the Defendant contends
that such phone records are more prejudicial than probative.
On February 24, 2026, the Government filed the United States’
Response to Defendant’s Omnibus Motion In Limine. (Docket No. 146).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion in Limine
“Federal district judges enjoy broad discretion in respect to
the ordering and presentation of proof and the handling of
evidentiary questions.” United States v. Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154,
163 (1st Cir. 1994); see Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), (c). A motion in
limine permits a court to rule in advance of trial on the
admissibility of anticipated evidence to avoid interruption or
delay during the proceedings. See United States v. Grullon, 996
F.3d 21, 28 n.8 (1st Cir. 2021); Luce v. United States, 469 U.S.
38, 40 (1984).
Rulings on motions in limine are provisional and may be
revisited as the evidence develops at trial. See United States v.
Benedetti, 433 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2005). On appeal, such
rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See White v. N.H.
Dep’t of Corr., 221 F.3d 254, 262 (1st Cir. 2002).
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 10

5 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
B. Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402
Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that relevant evidence
is admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if “(a) it
has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable; and (b) the
fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid.
401.
Rule 401 sets a “very low bar for relevance.” United States v.
Rodríguez-Soler, 773 F.3d 289, 293 (1st Cir. 2014). Evidence need
not definitively resolve a key issue; it need only advance the
inquiry to some degree. Bielunas v. F/V Misty Dawn, Inc., 621 F.3d
72, 76 (1st Cir. 2010).
C. Fed. R. Evid. 403
Although relevant evidence is generally admissible, it may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading
the jury, undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Relevant evidence may be unfairly prejudicial if it suggests
a decision on an improper basis, such as an emotional one. United
States v. Legassa, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19022, at *13 (1st Cir.
2025). However, “by design, all evidence is meant to be
prejudicial; it is only unfair prejudice which must be avoided.”
United States v. Aguilar-Aranceta, 58 F.3d 796, 800 (1st Cir.
1995).
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 10

6 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
III. ANALYSIS
A. Insanity
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 17, makes
insanity an affirmative defense requiring proof by clear and
convincing evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(a). Defendant is not
asserting an insanity defense. See (Docket No. 125 at 1).
Accordingly, the United States’ Motion in Limine on this point is
GRANTED. The defense may not raise insanity during trial.
B. Mental Condition
The parties agree that no insanity or mental health defense
is being pursued, and the Court bars reference to Defendant’s
mental condition. 18 U.S.C. § 17(a); United States v. Schneider,
111 F.3d 197, 200–01 (1st Cir. 1997)(citing United States v.
Pohlot, 827 F.2d 889, 903, 905–06 (3d Cir. 1987). Defendant’s
neuropsychological evaluation shows competence and ability to
assist in defense but does not negate mens rea. (Docket Nos. 48-
1; 69). Presentation of this evidence would confuse the jury and
risk improper sympathy-based consideration. Fed. R. Evid. 401,
403. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED: neither party may
reference Defendant’s mental conditions, except as admissible
under recognized hearsay exceptions in Rule 803.
C. Social Security Benefit Payments
Evidence of Social Security payments deposited in Defendant’s
accounts is relevant to demonstrating the scope and execution of
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 10

7 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
the ongoing fraud scheme. Docket No. 112 at 13. Prior arguments
about time-barred status or cumulative prejudice have been
rejected in the Court’s January 15, 2026 Opinion and Order. See
(Docket No. 101). Such evidence may be presented but remains
subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. As to this matter, the
United States’ Motion in Limine is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Omnibus
Motion In Limine is DENIED.
D. Certification of Failure to File Income Taxes
Hacienda’s certification showing Defendant did not file
income taxes between 2012 and 2022 is admissible to demonstrate
knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake, not character. Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b); 401, 403. The certification is probative and not
outweighed by prejudice. The United States’ Motion in Limine is
GRANTED.
E. Victimization of Social Security Claimants
Evidence that the scheme diverted funds from intended
beneficiaries is relevant to the offenses’ nature and scope.
Defendant’s concern about jury sympathy is addressed: the United
States may not ask jurors to imagine themselves in the victims’
position or decide the case based on emotion. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
The Defendant’s Omnibus Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 7 of 10

8 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
F. Reasonable Doubt
Defendant may not define or explain “reasonable doubt” to the
jury; that is the Court’s role. Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5
(1994); United States v. Ademaj, 170 F.3d 58, 66 (1st Cir. 1999);
United States v. Herman, 848 F.3d 55, 57 (1st Cir. 2017). Defense
may argue failure of proof but may not instruct on the standard.
The United States’ Motion in Limine GRANTED.
G. Criminal Penalties
The jury has no sentencing role; information about potential
penalties is excluded. Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 579
(1994); United States v. Merlino, 592 F.3d 22, 30 n.4 (1st Cir.
2010). The United States’ Motion in Limine GRANTED.
H. Health and Needs
Evidence of Defendant’s or her family’s health, age,
finances, or background lacks relevance to the charged offenses
and risks improper sympathy-based consideration. Fed. R. Evid.
401, 402, 403; United States v. Alarcón-Rodríguez, 768 F. Supp. 3d
306, 312 (D.P.R. 2025); United States v. Díaz-Nieves, 24-CR-0087-
GMM, *2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82844, at *6. The United States’ Motion
in Limine GRANTED.
I. Discovery Matters
Both parties are prohibited from referencing discovery
matters in the presence of the jury or introducing previously
undisclosed materials. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(C); Alarcón-
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 8 of 10

9 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
Rodríguez, 768 F. Supp. 3d at 312. The United States’ Motion in
Limine United States’ and Defendant’s Omnibus Motion in Limine are
GRANTED.
J. Overview Testimony
Government witnesses may describe facts they personally
observed and the course of investigation but may not rely on
inadmissible hearsay or give opinion on Defendant’s culpability.
United States v. Rodríguez-Adorno, 695 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir. 2012);
United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5, 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2011). The
Defendant’s Omnibus Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN
PART.
K. Victim’s Negligence
The negligence of the victim in failing to discover a
fraudulent scheme is not a defense to wire or bank fraud. See
United States v. Rivera-Izquierdo, 850 F.3d 38, 51 (1st Cir. 2017)
(finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s granting the
government’s motion in limine to exclude argument or evidence
regarding victim negligence). Accordingly, any reference to any
action or omission by the Social Security Administration is
irrelevant and likely to confuse or mislead the jury.
L. Telephone Records
The Government seeks to introduce a Social Security
Administration “call log” to show that someone was actively
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 9 of 10

10 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
contacting the agency to make changes or inquiries on the
beneficiaries’ accounts after their approval. The Government has
proffered evidence or testimony linking these calls to Defendant.
The Court finds that these telephone records are relevant, possess
probative value as to the nature and scope of the offenses, and
DENIES Defendant’s Omnibus Motion in Limine with respect to this
matter.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the United States’
Motion in Limine; and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s
Omnibus Motion in Limine.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 24, 2026.
/s/ Gina R. Méndez-Miró
GINA R. MÉNDEZ-MIRÓ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 147 Filed 02/24/26 Page 10 of 10