Improper Joinder of Multiple Party Criminal Fraud Case With Co-Defendants Charged with Murder
Post 5172
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gG7gsyy8 and at https://lnkd.in/gcfHEjTW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Murder Defendants Must be Tried Separately from Fraud Defendants
A case that involved allegations of a years-long scheme by over a dozen individuals to stage fake automobile collisions in the New Orleans metropolitan area and file fraudulent insurance claims and lawsuits based on the staged collisions. The key individuals involved included Cornelius Garrison, who began cooperating with the federal government in 2019 and was subsequently murdered on September 22, 2020.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Ryan Harris, et al., CRIMINAL ACTION No. 24-105, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (July 25, 2025) the USCA dealt with motions to sever some defendants from the massive and admittedly complex case. There are 11 defendants charged with a multi-year conspiracy involving attorneys and some of the charges against some of the defendants include the murder of a government witness.
The government filed a second superseding indictment on April 25, 2025, charging multiple defendants with various crimes. Notably, only Sean D. Alfortish and Leon M. Parker were also charged with crimes related to Garrison’s murder.
ANALYSIS
In a Motion to Sever, Giles and the King Firm sought to sever their trial from all of their co-defendants pursuant to Rules 8(b) and 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Government contended that the defendants in this case pursued the common goal of personal gain through fraudulent lawsuits and insurance claims, and that the slammers, especially Garrison, were the “key men” who were involved in and directed illegal activities while the passengers and attorneys exerted individual efforts toward the common goal.
COURT FINDINGS
The Court found that there was an overlap of participants in the alleged schemes of Giles, the King Firm, and the Motta Defendants. Additionally, Giles, the King Firm, and the Motta Defendants allegedly paid their slammers via cash and checks and attempted to conceal the nature of the payments in the same way – by categorizing them as “loans” or “advances” on future settlements.
The Court also found that there was a substantial overlap in facts and participants regarding the filing of fraudulent insurance claims as alleged in count one. The Court concluded that count one alleged that Lawrence and other defendants participated in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense, and that she was properly joined as a defendant in count one under Rule 8(b).
Based upon the allegations in the second superseding indictment, the facts underlying the murder charges against Parker and Alfortish substantially overlap with, and stem from, Garrison’s participation in the conspiracy alleged in count one and his covert cooperation with the federal investigation into the staged collision scheme.
The Court found that the conspiracy allegations in count one, including that Garrison was covertly cooperating with a federal investigation into the staged automobile collision scheme, connect Giles, the King Firm, and the Motta Defendants to the allegations against Alfortish and Parker in the murder charges.
The Court also found that Giles, the King Firm, Stalbert, Morgan, and Lawrence will be prejudiced if their fraud and obstruction charges are joined with the murder charges pending against Alfortish and Parker since the Court further found the murder is likely to spillover and prejudice Giles, the King Firm, Stalbert, Morgan, and Lawrence who, the Government admited, have no connection to the murder.
Accordingly, the Court found that Giles, the King Firm, Stalbert, Morgan, and Lawrence carried their burden of proving prejudicial joinder of the murder charges.
CONCLUSION
A court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence, the Court has determined that this is indeed one of those cases where a joint trial that includes the murder charges in counts nine through thirteen against Alfortish and Parker would do just that.
ZALMA OPINION
Although a massive insurance fraud scheme is serious and will be difficult to defend to attach to the fraud trial of multiple defendants, only two of whom were involved in the murder of Mr. Garrison, would prejudice the fraud defendants. The two defendants will be tried for the murder separately from the multiple defendants who were involved in the fraud, including the two charged with murder. Fraud trials should be as simple and direct as possible and even if the fraud resulted in a murder, the fraud trial should not be poisoned with the murder.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Death by Self-Administered Dialysis is Excluded
Post 5173
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvp3bKQF and at https://lnkd.in/gWWeqD7s, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Clear & Unambiguous Exclusion Effective
Dana Kleinsteuber died while administering her own dialysis at home. MetLife now agrees that tragedy was an accident but refused to pay because of an exclusion for losses caused or contributed to by the treatment of a physical illness.
In Charles M. Kleinsteuber v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, CIVIL No. 23-3494 (JRT/DTS), United States District Court, D. Minnesota (August 19, 2025) the USDC was faced with the interpretation of an exclusion in an ERISA plan.
KEY FACTS:
Dana Kleinsteuber’s Death:
Dana Kleinsteuber, diagnosed with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), was self-administering dialysis at home when she suffered acute blood loss and died. The cause of death was listed as ESRD and natural causes.
Insurance Claims:
Charles Kleinsteuber, Dana’s husband, filed claims for both ...
Not Wise to Attempt Rescission Without Evidence
Post 5173
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gMsRrCPj and at https://lnkd.in/g2hq9VtW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Desiree Durga and Justin Durga v. Memberselect Insurance Company, No. 371891, Court of Appeals of Michigan (August 13, 2025) Desiree Durga and Justin Durga (plaintiffs) claimed the insurer wrongfully attempted to rescind an auto policy.
THE ALLEGATIONS
MemberSelect claimed that Desiree Durga’s application for insurance contained a material misrepresentation, it did not produce a copy of the application. In fact defendant admitted the application for insurance no longer exists.
Trial Court Decision
The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition on their breach of contract claim and denied the defendant’s cross-motion for summary disposition, which argued that it was entitled to rescind the policy. The court found that the defendant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud
The court ...
Additional Insureds Can Intervene to Try to Defeat Suit to Rescind Policy
Post 5170
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYfHuADV and at https://lnkd.in/gnw6FFdX, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Posted on August 18, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The case involves Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company (“Accelerant”) seeking a declaratory judgment against Big Apple Designers, Inc. (“Big Apple”), declaring that the insurance policies issued by Accelerant to Big Apple are invalid and do not create a duty to defend or indemnify Big Apple in several personal injury actions currently pending in New York State Supreme Court. M&R Construction Group, Inc. (“M&R”) and Continental Indemnity Company (“Continental”) filed a motion to intervene, asserting that M&R is entitled to coverage from Accelerant as an additional insured.
In Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. Big Apple Designers, Inc., No. 24-CV-7793 (ARR) (RML), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 6, 2025) the USDC ruled to ...
Is Injury in the Course of Self-Defense an Occurrence?
Post 5171
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gAJnVny9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gUTs-w6E and at https://lnkd.in/gQPspzmB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
When There is no Accident the Intentional Acts Exclusion is Irrelevant
The case involves a tragic incident where Kimberly Mollicone was killed during a gunfight between her husband, Matthew Mollicone, and Daniele Giannone. The central issue is whether Giannone’s actions, taken in self-defense, are covered under his State Farm homeowner’s insurance policy.
In State Farm Fire And Casualty Company v. Daniele Giuseppe Giannone; Heidi C. Aull, personal representative for the estate of Kimberly Ann Mollicone, Nos. 24-1264, 24-1265, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (August 5, 2025) resolved the dispute.
THE INSURANCE COVERAGE
Although rare in insurance contracts the policy in question provides coverage for the insured’s liability to third parties who are injured ...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
