USA v. Harris et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-105
RYAN J. HARRIS, ET AL. SECTION: D (1)
This Order applies to
all defendants except
for Ryan Harris and
Jovanna R. Gardner
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Limit Scope of Evidentiary
Hearing Concerning Forfeiture by Wrongdoing.1 Defendants, Jason Giles and The
King Firm, LLC oppose the Motion,2 and the Government has filed a Reply.3 The
Court heard oral arguments on the Motion on November 20, 2025.4
After careful consideration of the parties’ memoranda, oral arguments, and
the applicable law, and for the reasons stated during the oral argument, the Motion
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND5
On April 25, 2025, the grand jury in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana returned a second superseding indictment in this case
charging Sean D. Alfortish, Vanessa Motta, Motta Law, LLC (“Motta Law”), Jason F.
1 R. Doc. 446.
2 R. Doc. 465.
3 R. Doc. 470.
4 R. Doc. 479.
5 In the interest of judicial economy, and because the factual and procedural history of this case was
set out in great detail 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.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 13

Giles, The King Firm, LLC (the “King Firm”), Leon M. Parker, Diaminike F. Stalbert,
Carl G. Morgan, and Timara N. Lawrence with various counts 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, as well as the September 22, 2020 murder of Cornelius Garrison.6 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.7 The Government contends 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. 8 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.9
6 R. Doc. 256. On May 3, 2024, the grand jury returned an 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
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.
7 See R. Doc. 1 in United States of America v. Cornelius Garrison, et al., Crim. A. No. 20-92-SSV-KWR
(E.D. La.) (hereafter, the Garrison matter”).
8 R. Doc. 256 at p. 3, ¶ 10 & p. 20, ¶ 3.
9 Id. at pp. 20–23.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 13

On March 31, 2025, the Government filed a Motion to Admit Statements Under
the Forfeiture by Wrongdoing Exception, seeking 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 Garrison made to coconspirators about Giles and
the King Firm in furtherance of the conspiracy under the hearsay exception 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.10 The
Government first asserts that Garrison’s statements about defendant, Ryan Harris,
and Harris’s family indirectly implicate Parker in the staged collision scheme and
that they should be admissible against Parker under the exception set forth in Rule
804(b)(6) because Parker was involved in Garrison’s murder.11 The Government next
asserts that Garrison’s statements should be admissible against Alfortish because
Garrison alerted law enforcement to multiple attempts by Alfortish and Motta to
silence him, and Alfortish arranged for Garrison’s murder.12 The Government then
asserts 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 staged collision scheme, which the Government claims demonstrated her “bad
intent” and desire to make Garrison an unavailable witness.13 The Government
10 R. Doc. 227; R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 1.
11 R. Doc. 227-1 at p. 20.
12 Id. at p. 21 (citing R. Doc. 184 at pp. 4–5).
13 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 21–22.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 13

contends that Motta and Alfortish’s romantic relationship, and the fact that they
worked closely together in the staged collision scheme, “suggests, at least for purposes
of this pretrial evidentiary matter, that Alfortish’s criminal behavior should be
imputed to Motta.”14 The Government further asserts that Garrison’s statements to
Harris made during and in furtherance of the staged collision scheme are not hearsay
and should be admissible against Giles and the King Firm as c-conspirator
statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).15 The Government claims that its
Motion to Admit Statements can be ruled on without a hearing, but that if the Court
requests an evidentiary hearing, it will make FBI Special Agent Michael Heimbach
available. 16 Several defendants oppose the Government’s Motion to Admit
Statements, 17 and the Government has filed a Reply. 18 The Motion to Admit
Statements is set for an evidentiary hearing on December 5, 2025.19
In the instant Motion, the Government asks the Court to limit the scope of the
evidentiary hearing on its Motion to Admit Statements by precluding defendants,
Giles and the King Firm, from participating in the hearing.20 The Government
asserts that counsel for Giles and the King Firm have stated that they plan to
14 Id. at p. 22 (citing United States v. Sanders, 952 F.3d 263, 275 (5th Cir. 2020)).
15 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 23–24 (citing United States v. Hall, 500 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 2007)). Although
not pertinent to the instant Motion, the Government further asserted in its Motion to Admit
Statements that while some of Garrison’s statements made to law enforcement and others that are
admissible against other defendants will implicate Stalbert and Morgan in the staged collision scheme,
it does not intend to use these statements against Stalbert and Morgan and the Court should provide
a limiting instruction to the jury. R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 24–25.
16 R. Doc. 227-1 at pp. 1–2 & 25.
17 R. Docs. 240, 262, 292, & 340.
18 R. Doc. 346.
19 R. Doc. 472.
20 R. Doc. 446-1 at p. 1. The Government notes that defendants, Stalbert, Morgan, and Lawrence, have
not requested to participate in the hearing, so the Government does not include them as parties to the
instant Motion and does not object to those defendants attending the hearing. Id. at n.1.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of 13

question a witness, Ryan Harris, during the hearing, despite the fact that the
Government does not intend to use the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to admit
Garrison’s statements against either Giles or the King Firm.21 The Government
explains that Harris was charged in May 2024 with various offenses related to
Garrison’s murder and the staged collision scheme, and that he subsequently entered
a guilty plea on January 16, 2025.22 The Government contends that in his Factual
Basis, Harris implicated Alfortish, Motta, Motta Law, Parker, Giles, the King Firm,
Lawrence, and Morgan in the staged collision scheme, and implicated Alfortish and
Parker in Garrison’s murder.23
The Government asserts that in its Motion to Admit Statements and its
subsequent Reply brief, it cited Harris’s Factual Basis, statements Garrison made to
law enforcement, and other evidence to demonstrate that Alfortish paid Parker to
murder Garrison and that Motta was at least aware that Garrison would be murdered
and did nothing to prevent it.24 The Government points out that in June 2025, Motta
obtained subpoenas for Harris and personal injury attorney, Bradley Egenberg, to
appear at the evidentiary hearing on the Government’s Motion to Admit
Statements.25 The Government contends that Giles and the King Firm have no stake
in the outcome of the hearing, so they should not be allowed to participate or question
21 R. Doc. 446-1 at p. 1.
22 Id. at p. 2 (citing R. Docs. 1 & 183).
23 R. Doc. 446-1 at p. 2 (citing R. Doc. 184 at pp. 2 & 5).
24 R. Doc. 446-1 at p. 3 (citing R. Docs. 227 & 346).
25 R. Doc. 446-1 at p. 3 (citing R. Doc. 329). The Court notes that the hearing on the Government’s
Motion to Admit Statements was scheduled for July 15, 2025 when the subpoenas were requested. See
R. Docs. 326 & 351.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 5 of 13

witnesses. 26 The Government asserts that Giles and the King Firm’s Sixth
Amendment right to confront witnesses does not apply because this is a hearing, not
a trial,27 and because Harris will not be an adverse witness to Giles or the King Firm
at the hearing.28
Giles and the King Firm oppose the Motion, asserting that they clearly have
an interest in the outcome of the hearing on the Government’s Motion to Admit
Statements because the Government seeks to admit hearsay statements against
them that Garrison made to Harris (and/or other coconspirators) in furtherance of
the conspiracy but under a different hearsay rule, namely Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).29
Giles and the King Firm argue that there is no evidence linking Harris to a conspiracy
with Giles and/or the members of the King Firm.30 Giles and the King Firm point out
that every reference to Harris in the second superseding indictment is devoid of any
reference to Giles and the King Firm and fails to link Harris to Giles or the King
Firm.31 Giles and the King Firm contend that the fact that Harris allegedly heard a
reference to Giles and the King Firm does not mean any such statement is in
furtherance of the conspiracy.32 Giles and the King Firm argue that the Government
is attempting to present hearsay evidence despite the fact that the Government has
no evidence of direct communications, financial transactions, or other connections
26 R. Doc. 446-1 at p. 4.
27 Id. at pp. 4–5 (citing United States v. Daniels, 930 F.3d 33, 405 (5th Cir. 2019)).
28 R. Doc. 446-1 at pp. 4–5 (citing United States v. Kindig, 854 F.2d 703, 708 (5th Cir. 1988)).
29 R. Doc. 465 at pp. 1–2.
30 Id. at p. 2.
31 Id. at pp. 3–4 (quoting R. Doc. 265 at ¶¶ 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26(c), 26(e), 26(g), 26(h), 26(i), 26(j), &
26(k)).
32 R. Doc. 465 at p. 4.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 6 of 13

between themselves and Harris.33 Finally, Giles and the King Firm assert that they
do not intend to engage in a fishing expedition at the hearing, and that they should
be given the opportunity to cross-examine and confront Harris regarding any
statements that the Government intends to introduce against them at trial.34
In response, the Government maintains that it is unnecessary and
inappropriate for Giles and the King Firm to participate in the hearing on the
Government’s Motion to Admit Statements because non-hearsay coconspirator
statements do not implicate the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception that will be at
issue at the hearing. 35 The Government asserts that the Court would not be
depriving Giles or the King Firm of their day in court because they have already filed
their own motion seeking a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of coconspirator
statements, which motion remains pending at this time.36 The Government claims
that in opposing that motion, it argued that the Court should not hold a pretrial
hearing, and should instead wait until trial when a determination regarding the
existence of the Rule 801(d)(2)(E) predicate facts can be made.37 The Government
maintains that because the upcoming hearing concerns the forfeiture by wrongdoing
exception and Giles and the King Firm’s participation would be irrelevant to that
issue, it would be inappropriate to allow them to question witnesses about
coconspirator statements at the hearing.38
33 Id.
34 Id. at p. 5.
35 R. Doc. 470 at p. 1.
36 Id. at pp. 1–2 (citing R. Doc. 280). The Court denied Giles and the King Firm’s Motion on November
21, 2025. R. Doc. 480.
37 R. Doc. 470 at p. 2 (citing R. Doc. 322 at pp. 3–4).
38 R. Doc. 470 at p. 3.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 7 of 13

During oral argument, the Government argued that it only intends to elicit
testimony regarding the admissibility of Garrison’s statements against Parker,
Alfortish, Motta, and Motta Law under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception at the
hearing, and that Giles and the King Firm are trying to expand the scope of the
hearing by questioning Harris about other matters. Counsel for Giles argued that
Giles and the King Firm should be able to participate and question Harris during the
hearing because he may testify about the global conspiracy and the coconspirators of
the staged collision scheme, implicating Giles and the King Firm. Counsel for Giles
expressed a desire to cross-examine Harris at the hearing and present argument to
the Court regarding the admissibility of Garrison’s statements under the wrongdoing
by forfeiture exception. Counsel for the King Firm also expressed a desire to
participate in the evidentiary hearing and asserted that if Harris is called to testify
at trial, counsel will file another motion to sever to prevent any prejudice that will
result from Harris testifying about Garrison’s murder. Counsel for Morgan similarly
expressed a desire to question Harris at the hearing if any of the statements sought
to be introduced by the Government under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception
implicate Morgan in the staged collision scheme. The Government responded by
asserting that if Garrison’s statements are admitted under the forfeiture by
wrongdoing exception, a limiting instruction would be appropriate and warranted to
advise the jury that the statements may only be considered as to Parker, Alfortish,
Motta, and Motta Law. The Government maintains that counsel for defendants other
than Parker, Alfortish, Motta, and Motta Law should not be allowed to cross-examine
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 8 of 13

Harris at the hearing since the Government does not seek to introduce Garrison’s
statements against them under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
At the outset, the Court points out that it recently issued an Order and Reasons
denying the Motion for Pre-Trial Hearing, Advance Proffer, and Ruling on the
Admissibility of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements on Behalf of Jason F. Giles and
The King Law Firm, LLC.39 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.40 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.41 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.42
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
39 R. Doc. 480.
40 590 F.2d 575, 582 (5th Cir. 1979).
41 R. Doc. 480 at p. 8.
42 Id.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 9 of 13

coconspirator statements during trial “whenever reasonably practicable,” as required
under Fifth Circuit jurisprudence.43
Because Harris will likely be called as a witness by the Government at trial,
Giles and the King Firm will have an opportunity to cross-examine Harris regarding
any statements made by Garrison and the circumstances surrounding those
statements, including whether they were made during and in furtherance of any
alleged conspiracy, before the Court rules on the admissibility of those statements as
coconspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Giles and the King Firm
are not entitled to obtain Harris’ testimony on that issue prior to trial by questioning
him during the December 5, 2025 evidentiary hearing, which will be limited to the
admissibility of Garrison’s statements to law enforcement and others under the
forfeiture by wrongdoing exception set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6). Giles and the
King Firm seemingly recognize the narrow scope of the hearing because they assert
in their Opposition brief that their questioning of Harris would not constitute a
“fishing expedition.” 44 To the extent Giles and the King Firm claim in their
Opposition brief that they will not have “an opportunity to confront an accuser” if
they are precluded from questioning Harris about the coconspirator statements at
the evidentiary hearing, the Fifth Circuit has held that a defendant’s Sixth
Amendment right to confront a witness is a trial right.45 The defendants will be
43 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).
44 R. Doc. 465 at p. 5.
45 R. Doc. 446-1 at p. 5 (citing United States v. Daniels, 930 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing United
States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996))).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 10 of 13

afforded that right at trial. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has held that, “[s]tatements
made by a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of a conspiracy are by
their nature generally nontestimonial and thus are routinely admitted against an
accused despite the absence of an opportunity for cross-examination.”46 Accordingly,
Giles and the King Firm are precluded from questioning Harris regarding the
admissibility of alleged coconspirator statements made by Garrison to Harris under
Rule 801(d)(2)(E) at the December 5, 2025 hearing on the Government’s Motion to
Admit Statements.
To the extent that counsel for Giles and the King Firm both expressed during
oral argument that they seek the opportunity to cross-examine Harris before the
Court rules on the admissibility of Garrison’s statements under the forfeiture by
wrongdoing exception, the Court will allow counsel to question Harris on that narrow
issue. To be clear, the Court will allow counsel for Giles and the King Firm to
question Harris only as to the statements made by Garrison that the Government
intends to admit against Alfortish, Parker, Motta, and Motta Law under the
forfeiture by wrongdoing exception in Rule 804(b)(6). The Court notes that it
previously addressed the limited scope of questioning that will be allowed of Harris
during the evidentiary hearing on the Government’s Motion to Admit Statements.
46 United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing authority). See United States v.
Gurrola, 898 F.3d 524, 535, n.17 (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821–22, 126 S.Ct. 2266,
165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006); Holmes, 400 F.3d at 347–48) (“The Confrontation Clause does not bear on non-
testimonial statements. And it is well-settled within this Circuit that co-conspirator statements are
non-testimonial.”); United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Holmes, 406 F.3d
at 348; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 56, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)) (recognizing
that business records are not testimonial in nature and that, “[t]he same is generally true of
coconspirator statements made during the course and in furtherance of a conspiracy.”).
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 11 of 13

During a telephone status conference held on July 10, 2025, the Court denied the
Government’s Motion to Quash two subpoenas issued to Harris and attorney, Bradley
Egenberg, at the request of Motta and Motta Law to appear and testify at the hearing
on the Government’s Motion to Admit Statements.47 In denying the Motion to Quash,
the Court advised counsel that the hearing would not devolve into a fishing
expedition, and that Motta and Motta Law would be limited to questioning the
witnesses regarding the Government’s arguments on the admissibility of Garrison’s
statements under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception. Accordingly, any
questioning of Harris during the December 5, 2025 evidentiary hearing will be limited
to the admissibility of Garrison’s statements against Alfortish, Motta, Motta Law,
and Parker under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception set forth in Fed. R. Evid.
804(b)(6).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to
Limit Scope of Evidentiary Hearing Concerning Forfeiture by Wrongdoing 48 is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent
that the Government seeks to prevent Jason F. Giles and The King Firm, LLC from
questioning Ryan Harris at the December 5, 2025 evidentiary hearing regarding
statements made by Garrison to Harris that the Government seeks to admit against
Giles and the King Firm as coconspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2)(E). The Motion is DENIED to the extent that the Government seeks to
47 R. Doc. 351 at p. 3.
48 R. Doc. 446.
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 12 of 13

prevent Giles and the King Firm from questioning Harris regarding the admissibility
of statements made by Garrison to law enforcement and others under the forfeiture
by wrongdoing exception set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6). Defense counsel will be
allowed to question Harris during the hearing, but only as to the admissibility of
Garrison’s statements to law enforcement and others under the forfeiture by
wrongdoing exception in Rule 804(b)(6).
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 26, 2025.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-00105-WBV-JVM Document 489 Filed 11/26/25 Page 13 of 13