In a ruling filed Jan. 19, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, federal Judge Sharion Aycock has denied a motion to dismiss the indictment against Jabari Edwards and Antwann Richardson, as well as a motion by Richardson to grant him a separate trial.

Edwards, who owns 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.

Prosecutors argue Edwards and Richardson fraudulently received PPP and EIDL money on behalf of North Atlantic Security, which was sold by Edwards soon after making the application, as well as Edwards Enterprises. Edwards Enterprises is a company incorporated in 2012, and whose most recent filing with the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office lists Edwards as its sole member.

The government alleges pandemic relief money from those companies was commingled with funds from Edwards’ other companies. The money was used to prop up those other businesses, as personal gifts, pay their taxes and, in some cases, buy real property, including Court Square Tower in downtown Columbus.

Both men are charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and making false statements.

On Nov. 7 Edwards’ attorney, L.N. Chandler Rogers, filed a motion asking that the indictment be dismissed entirely. Rogers argued that the government’s case “…lacks specificity as to the nature of the crimes allegedly committed and fails, in many respects, to state a criminal offense.”

After Edwards’ motion was filed, the government filed a second, superseding, indictment that added more charges. Aycock explains in her ruling that because the second indictment “includes many of the same charges for which the defendants sought dismissal,” she would go ahead and rule on the motion anyway.

Aycock does not agree with the defense’s claim that the indictment was problematic.

An indictment should list each element of the charged offense, notify the defendant of the charges filed against him and provide the defendant with a double jeopardy defense against future prosecutions to be “sufficient,” Aycock wrote.

“Importantly, the relevant inquiry is not ‘whether the indictment could have been better drafted’ but ‘whether it conforms to minimal constitutional standards,’” she wrote.

In the motion to dismiss, Rogers made many arguments attacking the government’s case and alleging that no crimes had actually been committed. Aycock disagreed.

“The court…finds that the allegations adequately set forth the essential facts for the charged offenses,” she wrote. “The defendants’ factual attacks as to their state of mind and their arguments that the filings could have been better drafted do not rise to the level of warranting dismissal.”

The allegations “at a minimum conform to minimal constitutional standards,” she wrote.

Richardson, Edwards to be tried together
Richardson’s attorney, Victor Fleitas, filed a memorandum Dec. 20 asking that his client be tried separately from Edwards.

Fleitas’ argument revolved around the idea that, after his arrest, Edwards made a statement to investigators where he “mentions (Richardson’s) name 28 times and simultaneously sought to deflect culpability away from (Edwards) while simultaneously incriminating (Edwards and Richardson).”

Fleitas argued that, because both men were being tried together, Edwards’ statements violated Richardson’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, and trying the two together would “seriously prejudice” his right to a fair trial.

Prosecutors argued in turn that defendants indicted together should be tried together, as joint trials promote efficiency and protect against the “inequity of inconsistent verdicts.”

In order to be granted a separate trial, “the burden is on the defendant to show clear prejudice. The prejudice must outweigh the government’s interest in judicial economy; and must be incurable through jury instructions,” Aycock wrote.

Aycock wrote that the prosecution had already addressed the matter of Edwards’ statement, stating that they “do not intend to introduce the federal agent’s report of Edwards’ statement into evidence.”

“The government’s stipulation — that the agent will only be questioned about statements that Edwards made about his own conduct — resolves Richardson’s concern that Edwards’ statement” implicates him or will be used against him, Aycock wrote.

Aycock added that this also bars the government from introducing a written copy of the statement into evidence.

Fleitas, in his motion for a separate trial, also claimed that Edwards’ defense is “antagonistic to and inconsistent with” Richardson’s.

Aycock ruled that Richardson’s “contention is related to Edwards’ alleged statement which implicated” both of them.

Richardson argues that Edwards’ statements conflict with Richardson’s defenses of good faith, and that he “lacked knowledge and/or direct participation” of the criminal acts.

Likewise, the prosecution’s decision not to ask the agent about Edwards’ statements that pertain to Richardson solves the problem, Aycock wrote.

“…the government’s stipulation (not to ask about Edwards’ statements about Richarson) will adequately address the issue,” Aycock wrote.

Smith withdraws as attorney
Also on the docket is a request by defense attorney Donna Smith to withdraw from the case. Since his arrest, Smith has been listed alongside Rogers as one of Edwards’ attorneys.

On Jan. 18, she asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case because she is no longer involved in the decision-making or day-to-day operations of the case.

She wrote that she was no longer privy to “attorney-client information or decisions,” including drafting or discussing motions, and had not been “…for more than three months.”

“Effectively, counsel would show that she has been pushed out of this case at the wishes of (Edwards) and, due to the perceived lack of confidence, she is unable to zealously represent (Edwards) in this case,” she wrote.

Aycock granted Smith’s motion on Jan. 23.

Court Square Towers issue still unresolved
Still before Aycock is the government’s request to lift the freeze in place against Court Square Tower.

When Edwards and Richardson were arrested, the government froze numerous assets, including specific bank accounts and real property, including Court Square Tower. They will be forfeited to the government in the event of a guilty verdict.

In a motion filed Jan. 5, prosecutors asked for the asset freeze in place against the property be lifted so its former owner, attorney Wilbur Colom, could initiate a foreclosure.

A company named J5 Towers LLC was formed in January 2022 to buy the property from Colom in an owner-financed deal. Prosecutors allege that Colom is owed “in excess of $100,000 in past due interest payments,” and a final balloon payment of $1.2 million was due Dec. 31.

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