Prosecutors are pushing back on Jabari Edwards’ second attempt to suppress potentially incriminating statements he made after his arrest.

In a response to Edwards’ most recent motion, the government contends that Edwards’ arguments about body cameras and whether his initial interrogation were recorded are irrelevant and an attempt to re-argue a point he has already lost.

Edwards and J5 President Antwann Richardson were indicted in June 2022 for allegedly misusing more than $2 million in Paycheck Protection Plan and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program funding.

They allegedly fraudulently applied for coronavirus relief funds through North Atlantic Security, which Edwards owned at the time but later sold, and Edwards Enterprises, a company listing Edwards as its sole member.

The specific statements in question are not yet part of the public court file. The motion asks they only be made available “under seal” to the judge for the purposes of ruling on the motion.

The two are jointly charged with 17 criminal counts, including multiple charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.

Edwards’ first attempt to get those statements thrown out was rejected by Federal Judge Sharion Aycock at a hearing in April. Earlier this month Edwards’ attorney, L.N. Chandler Rogers, asked Aycock to reconsider, alleging that policies requiring use of body cameras and that his statements to agents be recorded were not followed.

The government filed its response on May 15.

“There is no legitimate basis for reconsideration of the court’s ruling,” the government wrote. “There is no newly discovered evidence to be considered or recent change in the law that might alter the court’s decision. The defendant is simply unhappy with the ruling and wants to reargue his case.”

Edwards’ arrest was handled by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), which falls under the Treasury Department. Edwards was interrogated at the Columbus FBI office and then taken to Oxford for booking.

While Edwards argued the Treasury Department had a body camera policy in place at the time of his arrest, the government’s response reads, “there is no evidence to suggest that Treasury had such a policy in effect at that time.”

Edwards and Rogers did not clearly establish whether the policy was in place at the April hearing, the government argues.

“There were multiple Treasury agents that testified at the hearing,” the government wrote. “The defendant could easily have asked any of them when the Treasury Department’s (body camera) policy went into effect and whether or not it was in effect on the date of arrest.”

Edwards argued Department of Justice policies require that interviews be recorded, and, because he gave his statement at the local FBI office, that policy applied.

The prosecutors argue otherwise.

“Any DOJ recording policy does not and did not apply to Treasury agents,” the prosecutors wrote. “… A Treasury interview is not subject to DOJ policy simply because the interview is conducted in a DOJ office.”

The heart of the issue, the government writes, is whether Edwards understood he was waiving his rights when he made the statement in question.

“The court found Edwards to be an ‘extremely intelligent, very successful business person,’” the prosecution writes. “… The court found Edwards made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver. All of these other issues … would not change the defendant’s admissions that he understood his rights.”

‘What reason other than suppression?’
Rogers, in a response filed Monday, wrote the government’s arguments don’t hold water.

“DOJ and (Treasury) agents worked together on the pre-indictment arrest plan,” Rogers wrote. “They were all part of the team who detained Edwards until his interview with (Treasury). … This was a team effort, and suggesting otherwise is simply incorrect.”

Treasury agents should not be able to sidestep recording the arrest and interview, Rogers claims.

“(Treasury) chose to associate DOJ agents on this case,” Rogers wrote. “(Treasury) agents cannot benefit from DOJ’s assistance, but simultaneously avoid the DOJ’s recording policy.”

The government doesn’t provide a “plausible” reason why recording did not take place, Rogers wrote.

“… What reason other than suppression of the truth would the arrest and detention not be recorded?” Rogers wrote.

The trial is currently set for Aug. 21.

Brian Jones is the local government reporter for Columbus and Lowndes County.

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Man shot following illegal dice game in Clay County

  By Paloma Green • 1 day ago