United States of America v. Alhallaq

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO.5:25CR309
)
)
Plaintiff ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
)
vs. )
)
YOUSIF ABDULRAOUF ALHALLAQ, ) ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
)
)
Defendant )
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J:
This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Omnibus Motion in Limine (ECF #
44) and Motion to Strike (ECF # 45) and Defendant Yousif Adbulraouf Alhallaq’s Motion to
Exclude Witness at Trial. (ECF # 46). The Court’s ruling is as follows:
On June 25, 2025 the United States issued a two count Indictment against Defendant.
Count 1:
Between on or about November 27, 2017, and May 4, 2018, in the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, YOUSIF ABDULRAOUF ALHALLAQ, while a native of
Kuwait and citizen of Jordan, did knowingly procure his naturalization as a United States citizen
contrary to law, by making material misrepresentations causing his acquisition of citizenship,
that is, Defendant made material false statements on a Form N-400 Application for
Naturalization that he mailed on or about November 27, 2017, and was considered filed on or
Case: 5:25-cr-00309-CAB Doc #: 50 Filed: 09/03/26 1 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

about December 1, 2017, by answering "no" to questions 14C, which asked, "Were you ever
involved in any way with any of the following: ... (C) Killing, or trying to kill, someone?"; 14D,
which asked, "Were you ever involved in any way with any of the following:[ ... ] (D) Badly
hurting or trying to hurt a person on purpose?"; and 22, which asked, "Have you EVER
committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit, a crime or offense for which you
were NOT arrested?", when in fact Defendant then well knew at the time of his application that
on or about December 21, 2014, he had committed acts of Attempted Murder under Ohio
Revised Code, Sections 2923.02/2903.02(A), and Felonious Assault under Ohio Revised Code,
Section 2903.1l(A)(l), for which he was subsequently convicted in the Stark County, Ohio Court
of Common Pleas, Case, Case No. 2021CR0567, on or about September 20, 2021.
Count 2:
Defendant made material false statements during his interview on or about March 27,
2018, by verbally confirming his "no" answers to questions 14C, which asked, "Were you ever
involved in any way with any of the following: Killing, or trying to kill, someone?"; 14D, which
asked, "Were you ever involved in any way with any of the following: Badly hurting or trying to
hurt a person on purpose?"; and 22, which asked, "Have you EVER committed, assisted in
committing, or attempted to commit, a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?",
when in fact Defendant then well knew at the time of the interview that on or about December
21, 2014, he had committed acts of Attempted Murder under Ohio Revised Code, Sections
2923.02/2903.02(A), and Felonious Assault under Ohio Revised Code, Section 2903.1l(A)(l), for
which he was subsequently convicted in the Stark County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Case,
Case No. 2021CR0567, on or about September 20, 2021.
2
Case: 5:25-cr-00309-CAB Doc #: 50 Filed: 09/03/26 2 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

Because Defendant had concealed his conduct, on May 6, 2018, Defendant became a
naturalized United States Citizen.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Motions in Limine
“Motions in Limine are generally used to ensure evenhanded and expeditious
management of trials by eliminating evidence that is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.”
Indiana Insurance Co. v. General Electric Co., 326 F.Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D.Ohio 2004)
(citing Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Serv., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir.1997)). A
“motion in limine, if granted, is a tentative, interlocutory, precautionary ruling by the trial
court reflecting its anticipatory treatment of the evidentiary issue . . . the trial court is certainly
at liberty ‘* * * to consider the admissibility of the disputed evidence in its actual context.’”
State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199, 201-202 (1986) (citing State v. White, 6 Ohio App.3d 1, 4
(1982)). “Indeed, even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the
exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.” Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984).
The Sixth Circuit has instructed that the “better practice” is to address questions
regarding the admissibility of broad categories of evidence “as they arise.” Sperberg v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 R.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). “[A] court is almost always
better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence.” Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Ass’n v. Comerica Bank, No. 05-CV-0056, 2011 WL 4625359,
at *1 (S.D.Ohio Oct.3, 2011). It is noteworthy that denial of a motion in limine does not
necessarily mean that the evidence, which is the subject of the motion, will be admissible at
3
Case: 5:25-cr-00309-CAB Doc #: 50 Filed: 09/03/26 3 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

trial. Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D.Ohio 2004).
Fed.R.Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence tending to make the existence
of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence. Moreover, Fed.R.Evid. 402 provides that
evidence that “is not relevant is not admissible.”
Motion to Strike
The Indictment charges Defendant with multiple means of committing naturalization
fraud in that it alleges false statements in response to three different questions contained on the
N-400 naturalization application and asked during the naturalization interview.
As found in the Indictment’s General Allegations the United States moves to strike
Paragraphs 4 and 5. It further moves to strike Paragraph 5 from Count One and Paragraph 12
from Count Two. The United States no longer intends to prove Defendant’s guilt on the charged
offenses based on his response to Question 14C which reads: “Were you EVER involved in any
way with any of the following: Killing or trying to kill someone?” Thus, the United States seeks
only to strike one of the multiple means of committing the offense alleged in the Indictment.
Defendant opposes the Motion contending the United States cannot use a Motion to
Strike to alter or amend an Indictment but must instead return to the Grand Jury to amend the
same.
Ruling: The Motion is GRANTED.
In U.S. v Miller 471 U.S. 130 (1985) the Supreme Court held that “as long as the crime
and the elements of the offense that sustain the conviction are fully and clearly set out in the
indictment, the right to a grand jury is not normally violated by the fact that the indictment
4
Case: 5:25-cr-00309-CAB Doc #: 50 Filed: 09/03/26 4 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

alleges more crimes or other means of committing the same crime.” Citing U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend. 5. (Emphasis added). “‘A redaction of an indictment is permissible so long as the
elements of the offense charged are fully and clearly set out in what remains.’ ” United States v.
Green, 842 F.3d 1299, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Adkinson, 135 F.3d 1363,
1376 (11th Cir. 1998)).
“The decision whether to strike language from an indictment rests within the sound
discretion of the district court.” United States v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377, 394 (6th Cir.
2001). “Such a motion should be granted only where it is clear that the allegations contained in
the Indictment are not relevant to the charge made or contain inflammatory and prejudicial
matter.” United States v. Johnson, 256 F. Supp. 3d 755, 759 (M.D. Tenn. 2017) citing United
States v. O'Connor, 656 F.3d 630, 645 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Brye, 318 Fed.Appx.
878, 880 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. DeRosier, 501 F.3d 888, 897 (8th Cir.2007).
In Salinger v. United States,272 U.S. 542, 548–9 (1926), the Supreme Court explicitly
held that where an indictment charges several offenses, or the commission of one offense in
several ways, the withdrawal from the jury's consideration of one offense or one alleged method
of committing it does not constitute a forbidden amendment of the indictment. “A part of the
indictment unnecessary to and independent of the allegations of the offense proved may normally
be treated as a useless averment that may be ignored.” United States v. Glynn, No. 3:13-00059,
2017 WL 816826, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 2, 2017).
Omnibus Motion in Limine
A) Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant’s experts from presenting evidence at trial.
1) The United States seeks to exclude Defendant’s expert, Dr. Scott Perry, from testifying
5
Case: 5:25-cr-00309-CAB Doc #: 50 Filed: 09/03/26 5 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

at trial that the drug mifepristone does not cause birth defects. The United States contends that
such testimony is irrelevant because the United States will not argue at trial that Defendant’s
child’s disabilities were caused by Defendant’s alleged attempt to induce an abortion by putting
mifepristone into his then girlfriend’s oatmeal without her knowledge.
Ruling: the Motion is GRANTED.
The cause of Defendant’s child’s disabilities are not at issue in the upcoming trial.
However, as a result of this ruling the Court also holds that the United States may not offer into
evidence Defendant’s subjective opinion that mifepristone caused the child’s disabilities. The
Court orders the United States to redact any such references from the recording of the
conversations between Tana Ely and Defendant.
2) The United States further seeks to exclude Defendant’s expert, Dr. Abdel Ali, from
testifying on the Islamic understanding of when life begins. According to the United States, such
testimony is irrelevant as it has moved to strike all references in the Indictment to Defendant’s
purportedly false statements about killing or attempting to kill the couple’s unborn child. As a
result, Defendant’s understanding of when life begins has no relevance to the matters to be tried.
Ruling: the Motion is GRANTED.
B) Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Self Serving Statements as Hearsay
The United States further moves to exclude Defendant’s statements as captured on the
recording between Defendant and his then girlfriend, Tana Ely, because Defendant will be
present at trial and must testify to them personally. If he does not take the stand such statements
will be hearsay and there is no hearsay exception that applies.
Defendant argues that Fed. R. Evid. 106 expressly permits such statements over hearsay
6
Case: 5:25-cr-00309-CAB Doc #: 50 Filed: 09/03/26 6 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

objections.
Ruling: the Motion is DENIED.
Fed. R. Evid. 106, as amended effective December 1, 2023, reads:
If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an adverse party may require the
introduction, at that time, of any other part--or any other statement--that in
fairness ought to be considered at the same time. The adverse party may do so
over a hearsay objection.
Thus, by its express terms FRE 106 permits a party to introduce completing statements
over a hearsay objection where fairness requires. “Whenever one party introduces ‘all or part of
a statement” at trial, Rule 106 allows an adversary to contemporaneously introduce ‘any other
part—or any other statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.’” United
States v. Sherman, 168 F. 4th, 417, 428 (6th Cir. 2026) citing FRE 106. The Sixth Circuit has
read the rule's “fairness” language to describe the need “to correct a misleading impression
created by the introduction of part of a writing or conversation” by placing “the admitted portions
in proper context.” United States v. Holden, 557 F.3d 698, 705 (6th Cir. 2009).
C) That the Court make a pretrial evidentiary ruling that if the Defendant testifies the
government may cross-examine him as to the source of the mifepristone he used, and
that the Defendant may not properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination to refuse to answer those questions.
Ruling: The Motion is DENIED at this time subject to revisiting at trial based on the evidence.
The Motion is based on a speculative outcome that is more appropriately addressed at trial should
Defendant take the stand.
7
Case: 5:25-cr-00309-CAB Doc #: 50 Filed: 09/03/26 7 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

Defendants Motion to Exclude Witness at Trial.
Defendant moves to exclude Tana Ely from testifying at trial pursuant to FRE 403
because “the probative value of Ms. Ely’s testimony will be substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, mislead the jury, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Ruling: The Motion is DENIED.
Ely’s testimony is relevant to the truthfulness of Defendant’s statements on N-400
application and his responses to the naturalization interview. Moreover, the Court as gatekeeper
is competent to keep out irrelevant, prejudicial or inflammatory testimony during the course of
the trial.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the
United States’ Omnibus Motion in Limine (ECF # 44), GRANTS the Motion to Strike (ECF #
45) and DENIES Defendant Yousif Adbulraouf Alhallaq’s Motion to Exclude Witness at Trial.
(ECF # 46).
As a result, the parties’ proposed Jury Instructions will not include any reference to
Question 14C, nor will the Magistrate Judge or the parties reference Question 14C during any
portion of the trial. Further, the parties shall confer and submit to the Court, in accordance with
the Trial Order, a joint summary of the Indictment that does not include Question 14C language.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: 09/03/2026
s/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
8
Case: 5:25-cr-00309-CAB Doc #: 50 Filed: 09/03/26 8 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>