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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
