COLUMBUS — Jabari Edwards is continuing to attack the credibility of the federal case against him, alleging that statements attributed to him in law enforcement documents were fabricated.
Edwards and J5 President Antwann Richardson were indicted in June 2022 for 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 two are jointly charged with 17 criminal counts, including multiple charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.
Edwards has previously attacked the admissibility of allegedly incriminating statements he made immediately after his June 2022 arrest. He first argued his right to an attorney was violated and subsequently that government agents were legally required to record his arrest and interrogation, but they did not.
District Judge Sharion Aycock ruled against Edwards in both attempts.
Defense attorney Wilbur Colom argued in a motion filed Nov. 10 in the Northern District of Mississippi that Agent Mauricio Dietrich Bohmer fabricated statements and attributed them to Edwards. Bohmer is one of two agents with the U.S. Treasury’s Office of the Special Investigator General for the Toxic Asset Recovery Program who arrested Edwards.
Colom argues that Bohmer’s account claims Edwards stated he is “very familiar” with the PPP program; acknowledged making improper payments with EIDL money; admitted bonus checks endorsed with the message “I love you” came from PPP and EIDL money; and that he EIDL was a loan that needed to be paid back and was for building back businesses after the COVID-19 pandemic, and was not for bonus checks, among other things.
According to the indictment, Edwards fraudulently wrote tens of thousands of dollars in bonus checks to friends and employees with ‘I love you’ in the memo line.
None of those statements appear in Bohner’s notes, Colom wrote.
Bohner also claims that Edwards provided specific dollar amounts, exact numbers of employees and specific dates on which the fraudulent applications were made, Colom wrote.
“(Bohner’s notes) strain its credibility when it states that Edwards remembers dates, amounts and details from documents not presented to him that day that were executed more than 18 months earlier,” Colom wrote. “The agent asks the court to turn a blind eye to an apparently manufactured confession.”
Statements Bohner claims Edwards made are simply passages from the indictment that were “cut and pasted” and “put into the mouth of Edwards,” Colom wrote. “That is, unless Edwards speaks exactly like the attorneys in the United States Attorney’s Office.”
Agents deliberately created a situation where they could fudge the truth, Colom wrote.
“The evolution of procedures to avoid such phony confessions have evolved from having the suspect sign the statement, to having the suspect actually handwriting (sic) the statement, to audio taping, to video recording,” Colom wrote. “… (The agents) selected the least reliable, easiest to fabricate means to conduct an interview, their notes and memory.”
For all these reasons, Colom asks the court to suppress Edwards’ incriminating statements.
Prosecutors: ‘It is for the jury to decide’
The government, in a response filed Nov. 20, alleges Edwards is attempting to pit his “credibility and interpretation of the facts” against the government’s.
Prosecutors allege that Bohner’s account of the conversation was based on both his notes and his memory.
“(The document) was prepared one week after the interview, close enough in time that (Bohmer) could accurately write (it) based on his notes and memory of the interview,” the government wrote. “… Clearly, the purpose of (Bohmer’s) notes was to jog his memory of the interview so he could write up a report.”
The government also argues Bohmer’s use of the language from the indictment was routine.
“The indictment and loan applications naturally formed a template for the questioning in the interview, with the agents asking Edwards over and over again whether the information contained in the indictment was correct,” the prosecutors wrote. “It is not surprising those admissions were reflected in (Bohner’s) recount of the interview.”
Prosecutors argue whether Bohner or Edwards is the more credible is a question for the jury.
“(Bohmer) will testify that Edwards made the statements,” the government wrote. “At best the ‘issues’ that Edwards raises in his latest motion are fodder for cross examination. … It is for the jury to decide whether they believe Edwards or (Bohmer).”
Brian Jones is the local government reporter for Columbus and Lowndes County.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 30 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 30 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
Join the Discussion