Attorneys for Jabari Edwards and Antwann Richardson are asking a federal judge to compel the government to release the identities of witnesses set to testify against them, as well as provide documents they claim are being withheld.
In a motion filed July 17, attorney Wil Colom — a member of Edwards’ legal team — alleges prosecutors are trying to slip expert witnesses in the back door, and that the Small Business Administration is all but refusing to fulfill a request for documentary evidence.
Edwards, founder of J5, and Richardson, its president, 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 money was allegedly used for personal real estate transactions, including buying Court Square Tower, political contributions, charitable donations, buying vehicles and lump sum payments to friends, family members and other companies.
The two are jointly charged with 17 criminal counts, including multiple charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.
The first issue Colom raises is the identity of the SBA witnesses. Prosecutors told Richardson in a Dec. 16 letter they were going to call “witnesses from the SBA to testify about PPP and EIDL loans,” according to Colom’s motion, which is only one side of a legal argument.
These witnesses were being called “not as experts, but to ‘testify about their personal knowledge’ of those programs.”
Colom argues this is “merely an attempt to obtain expert testimony without giving (required) expert disclosures.”
The witnesses will express views based on their years of experience and “possession of unusual knowledge,” Colom wrote, and “this is clearly expert testimony.”
In spite of rules requiring the advance disclosure of expert witnesses, the government has not done so, Colom alleges. He is asking they be identified and made available to the defense team at least 30 days before trial, which is currently set for Aug. 21.
“A later date would cause severe prejudice to this defendant in preparing his cross-examination, case-in-chief at trial, and identifying witnesses with different views,” Colom wrote.
The second prong of Colom’s motion is a request for the court to compel the SBA to disclose documentary evidence detailing which PPP and EIDL-related payments were illegal under government guidelines.
As part of that effort, on March 8 the defense subpoenaed records from SBA seeking “… program rules, regulations, manuals and bulletins covering eligibility for (and) restrictions on (the) use of funds.”
The SBA responded by directing Edwards to its website.
In addition to arguing that this was not a good-faith effort to comply with the subpoena, Colom argues it does not provide bulletins, press releases and other documents that were the primary means of communicating with the public.
The defense team asked for the documents again, and the SBA again didn’t turn them over, noting the “large volume of communications sent out by various parts of the agency daily” made it hard to know what documents should be turned over.
“(Providing) their newsletters, bulletins and press releases is not an unduly burdensome request,” Colom wrote.
Colom asks the court to compel the prosecution to hand over the names and contact information from the SBA witnesses, a list of the problematic expenditures and the SBA documents by the end of the month.
Without the documents, Colom writes, the trial “… could turn into a circus sideshow of last-minute witness subpoenas and document productions by both parties … leading to impairment of Edwards’ defenses.”
If the prosecution won’t turn them over, Colom asks the SBA representatives be barred from testifying and the government be prevented from presenting documents about impermissible use of funds.
Earlier this month the government filed a motion arguing Colom has a conflict of interest in the case. They allege he and Edwards have a business relationship, and that Colom himself could be called as a witness in the case, as could one of his employees.
Colom was the previous owner of Court Square Tower, which he sold to a corporation owned by Edwards in 2022. According to prosecutors, Colom also is assisting in running Edwards’ companies and has a personal financial interest in one of Edwards’ businesses.
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 32 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 32 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