U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock’s Jan. 19 order included two other blows to Jabari Edwards and Antwann Richardson’s defense.
Aycock denied a motion by the defendants for a more detailed explanation of the charges against them, as well as an effort by Edwards to get access to grand jury transcripts.
Edwards and Richardson were indicted last year on charges that they fraudulently obtained $2 million in Paycheck Protection Plan and Economic Injury Disaster Loan funds on behalf of North Atlantic Security and Edwards Enterprises.
The money was allegedly spent to prop up other companies, pay their taxes and buy real property.
On Dec. 9 Edwards’ attorney, L.N. Chander Rogers, filed a motion asking for a bill of particulars, which is a formal written statement providing details of the charges against a defendant.
In that motion, Rogers argued that the superseding indictment brought in December — which added four new charges against Edwards and Richardson — “lacks sufficient specificity.”
Rogers argued that nowhere in the second indictment was there a reference to “a specific Small Business Administration rule articulating what is permissible and what is not. Without an SBA rule violation, there can be no crime.”
Edwards needs an explanation of “…the actual provisions of the PPP and EIDL guidelines that the government alleges he violated,” Rogers wrote.
Aycock wrote that the prosecutors’ filings answered those questions.
“The second superseding indictment clearly explains the fraudulent scheme in which the defendants allegedly engaged,” she wrote. The bill of particulars “…is not designed to compel the government to detailed exposition of its evidence or to explain the legal theories upon which it intends to rely at trial.”
In a Dec. 14 motion, Rogers asked that Edwards be given transcripts from the grand jury that indicted him.
Aycock wrote that grand jury proceedings enjoyed a “long tradition of secrecy” and that Edwards had to show “a particularized need” for the materials that outweighed the need for secrecy.
Rogers argued that the defense needed the transcripts “at least 35 days prior to trial,” not the seven days before trial that the court had already ordered.
He argued “…the actual trial may not take place for two years or more after the grand jury proceedings took place and that it is not in the interests of justice that the government have two years to interview these grand jury witnesses and the defense will have seven days.”
Aycock shot back that Rogers “wrongfully assumes that this case will be tried for two years.”
“The court can assure defendants that this case will be tried well before that time,” Aycock wrote. “In fact, this trial has been continued on two previous occasions — both at the request of the defendants. This cuts against their argument here.”
The trial was originally set for July 25, 2022.
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.
