Federal Judge Sharion Aycock denied a second attempt by Jabari Edwards to get allegedly incriminating statements he made to federal agents thrown out.
Aycock, in an order filed July 25 in the Northern District of Mississippi, disagreed with Edwards’ claims that the agents who interrogated him were required to record the interview. She also found Edwards did not properly invoke his right to counsel, and so agents did not violate his right to an attorney during and after his arrest.
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 “incriminating 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.
In February he asked incriminating statements he made to agents with the Office of the Special Investigator General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) be thrown out, claiming he had requested a lawyer several times and been ignored. A hearing was held in April in Oxford, and Ayock ruled against Edwards.
Edwards tried again in May, alleging the SIGTARP agents should have recorded both his arrest and his post-arrest interview. Part of his argument revolved around a May 25, 2022, executive order issued by President Joe Biden requiring federal agencies implement a body camera policy within 90 days. Edwards was arrested on June 16, 2022, and the Office of the Inspector General adopted a body camera policy on Aug. 29, 2022.
Edwards provided the court with a policy that supposedly required SIGTARP agents to record interviews, Aycock wrote, but it was undated.
“Under Edwards’ theory, the court would have to presume that (the policy) was adopted over two months prior to the (Office of the Inspector General)’s policy,” Aycock wrote. “… Edwards did not ask … any witness about this issue at the suppression hearing and has provided no reason why he did not do so.”
In his motion to reconsider, Edwards argues the Department of Justice required interviews be recorded, and that requirement should have been enforced because he was interviewed in the Columbus Federal Bureau of Investigation office.
The FBI is part of the DOJ.
Aycock didn’t buy that argument, either.
“Quite critically, there was no testimony whatsoever at the hearing to contradict the fact that the only people in the interview room were Edwards (and two SIGTARP agents),” Aycock wrote. “… Edwards’ argument completely ignores the fact that no DOJ personnel were involved in the interview.”
Even though the FBI was involved in Edwards’ arrest, “… to contend that Edwards was in the custody of any agency other than SIGTARP is a stretch,” Aycock wrote.
There is no evidence that Edwards invoked his right to an attorney during the arrest or interview, Aycock wrote.
Statements made by witnesses to Edwards’ arrest in writing differ from their accounts at the April hearing, Aycock wrote.
“(It) is a concern for the court that the testimony is disputed,” Aycock wrote. “It’s not the same as what was in (the witnesses’) affidavit.”
Edwards did not act like someone who had asked for a lawyer, Aycock wrote.
“… The court is of the opinion, based on all the testimony provided, that Edwards did not act in a manner consistent with having invoked his right to counsel,” Aycock wrote. “The court sees this argument as a non-starter.”
Edwards also argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the court barred one of his attorneys, Wil Colom, from participating in the April suppression hearing.
Aycock declined to rule on that issue now, because the government filed a motion on July 13 claiming Colom had a conflict of interest. Prosecutors 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 34 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 34 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