Trial II · 22cr223

Vol VII

2025-02-19

Day Overview

Volume VII covers the full trial day of February 19, 2025, before Judge Brasel. The day opened with a significant pre-trial legal dispute: a person connected to defendant Salim Said had approached cooperating witness Sharmake Jama in the courthouse hallway the prior afternoon and asked to 'talk in the bathroom,' which the government argued was witness tampering and consciousness of guilt. The court overruled defense objections and allowed the government to elicit this episode during Jama's testimony. Two brief Willmar community witnesses (Amal Muse and Becky Christianson) then testified that they spent extensive time in downtown Willmar during 2020-2021 and never observed any large-scale food distribution at the FaaFan Restaurant, despite claims of up to 3,000 meals per day. The centerpiece of the day was cooperating witness Sharmake Jama, who pled guilty to fraud and money laundering and testified in detail about how Salim Said recruited him, directed him to submit inflated meal counts (up to 3,000/day when in reality far fewer were served), and instructed him to pay proceeds back to Salim Limited LLC. Jama also described a September 2021 meeting at the Park Avenue office where site operators gathered, and confirmed he saw the same individual from the courthouse hallway incident at the Park Avenue location previously. The day closed with the beginning of FBI Special Agent Travis Wilmer's extensive direct testimony about the St. Cloud and Waite Park fraud sites, covering Olive Management and two Stigma-Free International locations, walking the jury through fabricated meal counts, backdated invoices, and implausible roster data. defense counsel should pay close attention to Jama's credibility vulnerabilities, the witness approach incident's prejudicial impact on all defendants including Bock, and the foundation issues raised by defense counsel during Wilmer's testimony.

Government Strategy

The government used this day to methodically build its case on two parallel tracks. First, it deployed two lay community witnesses from Willmar (Muse and Christianson) to testify that no large-scale food distribution ever visibly occurred at FaaFan Restaurant, directly contradicting thousands of claimed meals. Second, and most significantly, the government called cooperating witness Sharmake Jama, a guilty-pleading site operator, to provide an insider account of how the Safari group recruited restaurants, set inflated meal count limits, instructed operators on how to falsify numbers, generated fake invoices, and funneled money back to Salim Said through Salim Limited LLC. Finally, FBI Special Agent Travis Wilmer testified extensively on direct about the St. Cloud and Waite Park sites — Olive Management and two Stigma-Free International sites — walking the jury through month-after-month of identically patterned, 'pencil-whipped' meal counts, fabricated invoices, and fraudulent rosters, and linking the money flow directly to defendants Said and Salah. The government was building the narrative that the Safari group operated a coordinated, multi-site fraud enterprise across Minnesota.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The witness-tampering approach outside the courtroom is the most dangerous piece of new evidence in this volume. The government will use it against Said as consciousness of guilt, but the court explicitly left open whether the defendants' involvement could be established on cross-examination. If defense counsel's client is associated with the Safari group, this incident poisons the jury environment broadly. Defense counsel should immediately investigate whether this incident can be cleanly separated from his client and consider seeking a limiting instruction. - Sharmake Jama is a powerful cooperating witness but is significantly impeachable: his proffer evolved materially between January 27 and February 12, 2025 (one week before trial), with the contract-signing allegation against Said appearing for the first time in the final pre-trial session. This pattern of late-emerging, increasingly damaging details is a classic indicator of coached or embellished testimony. Defense counsel should obtain all proffer session records and FBI 302s and prepare a detailed timeline of what was disclosed when. - The government's strategy of using community lay witnesses to negate meal claims at specific sites (Muse and Christianson for Willmar) is replicable for every site. Defense counsel should investigate whether witnesses at his client's site location could testify about the actual level of observed food distribution activity — both to corroborate or to challenge the government's narrative. - Wilmer's 'pencil whipped' characterization is opinion dressed as observation and was never qualified as expert testimony. Defense counsel should consider a motion in limine or a Daubert challenge if Wilmer returns to similar characterizations in his trial. Alternatively, a defense expert in food service program administration who can explain legitimate record-keeping consistency would undercut this argument. - The financial money-flow evidence (Olive Management paying over $1.2 million to Salim Limited, plus Eidleh kickbacks) is among the most damaging in this volume. Defense counsel should identify which entities and money flows connect to his client and whether there is any legitimate-service explanation for large payments to Safari-connected entities. The consulting agreements are unsigned — this is a vulnerability in the government's 'sham contract' theory that should be pressed.

Witnesses

Amal Muse

Former Willmar Police Department Community Service Officer and family boutique/henna shop worker in downtown Willmar 2020-2021; called to testify she never observed large-scale food distribution at FaaFan Restaurant.

Other Government

Direct Examination

Muse testified she patrolled downtown Willmar 4-5 days per week as a CSO and also worked at her family's boutique a few hundred feet from FaaFan Restaurant. She stated she never saw lines of children, cars, or any indication that thousands of meals were being distributed daily from that location, and that traffic control would have been required if such volumes occurred.

▸

Muse testified she patrolled the 400 block of Litchfield Avenue — the exact block of the FaaFan Restaurant — one to three times per day, four to five days per week throughout 2020 and 2021. — Establishes her as a credible eyewitness who would have noticed high-volume meal distribution activity if it occurred. [p. 1357-1358]

▸

When shown Exhibit G6 claiming nearly 3,000 meals per day from FaaFan, Muse said: 'It's very surprising. With the amount of time I spent downtown, if we had that many people coming in on a daily basis, we would have the police department involved for some traffic control.' She confirmed the department was never called for that purpose. — Directly contradicts the inflated meal counts submitted by Feeding Our Future for the Willmar site. [p. 1363-1364]

▸

Muse stated she did not believe thousands of meals could have been distributed without her knowledge: 'I would have known about it somehow, either from the police department or working at the shop.' — Gives the government a community anchor to argue the fraud was obvious and undetectable only because it did not happen. [p. 1366]

Cross-Examination

Udoibok elicited that Muse was a community service officer, not a police officer; that she heard rumors of free meals but did not verify them; and that she did not know whether food was delivered to homes rather than distributed on-site. He also established she was not actively surveilling the restaurant and spent no more than brief drive-bys near it each day.

▸

Muse admitted she 'just assumed' the food was cooked rather than prepackaged, and she had no information whether home deliveries of free food occurred. — Opens the door to argue the program could have operated through delivery rather than walk-in distribution, undermining her negative inference. [p. 1368]

▸

Muse conceded: 'I didn't spend hours there, but I drove around there fairly often. Probably ten times in a day maybe.' On cross she could not say 139 children were turned away from food based on ten drive-bys. — Shows the limits of her observation — she was not monitoring the location continuously. [p. 1370-1371]

Vulnerabilities Muse is a community observer, not an investigator. She admitted she heard about free meals but never investigated. She did not monitor the restaurant continuously, was unaware of delivery programs, and 'just assumed' things about the nature of food. Her knowledge is impressionistic. She also had no familiarity with Feeding Our Future's structure or Aimee Bock's role. She did not know the 'Stigma-Free, Willmar' name on the restaurant signage until it was shown to her on cross.

For Defense Counsel Emphasize that she never investigated, never confirmed or denied delivery-based distribution, and was not in a position to say definitively what happened inside the restaurant or through off-site means. Highlight that even she 'heard things about free meals' — suggesting some program activity existed. Explore whether the program served fewer meals legitimately and the numbers were inflated, rather than the program being entirely fictitious.

Becky Christianson

Insurance agency worker whose office was three doors from FaaFan Restaurant on Litchfield Avenue in downtown Willmar; called to testify she never observed large-scale food distribution at FaaFan during 2020-2021.

Other Government

Direct Examination

Christianson testified she worked Monday through Friday, 8-5, in an office with glass doors facing Litchfield Avenue, three doors from FaaFan. She saw the exterior of the restaurant 2-3 times daily when checking her car for parking tickets. She never saw lines of people, hundreds of children, or lines of cars at the location during 2020 or 2021.

▸

Christianson stated: 'That would surprise me' when told 2,000-3,000 meals were claimed daily from FaaFan, because: 'I just didn't see that kind of activity.' — Corroborates Muse's testimony from an independent vantage point directly next to the site. [p. 1378-1379]

▸

She confirmed she had glass-front office doors facing the street, moved her car multiple times daily due to 2-3 hour parking limits, and thus had persistent visual exposure to the FaaFan entrance throughout each workday. — Establishes credible, continuous proximity to the site during the relevant period. [p. 1375-1378]

Cross-Examination

Udoibok established that Christianson had no familiarity with Feeding Our Future or the Stigma-Free, Willmar program name. She did not know the agreement between those entities or whether food was supplied to the restaurant. Cross was brief and minimally effective.

▸

Christianson confirmed she had never heard of 'Feeding Our Future' or 'Stigma-Free, Willmar' during her years in downtown Willmar. — Shows the program had no public presence in the community — a double-edged point, since it could suggest either fraud or poor marketing. [p. 1380-1381]

▸

Christianson admitted she did not know the relationship between Feeding Our Future and Stigma-Free Willmar or whether there was 'any agreement to supply food.' — Weakens her as a witness on the internal mechanics of the program; she only observed externally. [p. 1381]

Vulnerabilities Christianson is a pure lay observer with no knowledge of how the program worked, who ran it, or what internal agreements existed. She cannot say what happened inside the building, through deliveries, or at off-hours. Her observation was passive — she was managing her insurance office, not monitoring FaaFan. The prior defense could have pressed harder on whether she was there on weekends or evenings when meals might have been distributed.

For Defense Counsel If Stigma-Free/FaaFan operated outside of Christianson's 8-5 workday window or served meals through delivery or pick-up, her testimony is limited. Explore program operating hours. Also note she had zero knowledge of the sponsoring organization — potential to argue she cannot speak to what arrangements existed behind the scenes.

Sharmake Jama

Owner of Brava Restaurant in Rochester, MN; pled guilty to fraud and money laundering arising from participation in the Federal Child Nutrition Program through Feeding Our Future; key cooperating witness testifying against Salim Said.

Cooperating Witness Government

Direct Examination

Jama provided an extensive insider account of how he was recruited into the food program by Feeding Our Future and directed to Safari Restaurant where he met Salim Said, who told him his daily meal limit was 3,000 and trained him to submit inflated meal counts. Jama confirmed he submitted false numbers, received large checks from Feeding Our Future (up to $1.1 million), paid portions back to Salim Limited LLC on Said's direction, used fraudulent invoices he did not prepare (attributed to Abdulkadir Nur Salah and Salim Said), created shell LLCs to distribute proceeds, and purchased houses and property in Turkey with fraud proceeds. He also identified a person who approached him in the courthouse hallway the day before testimony, recognized as someone he had seen at the Park Avenue office.

▸

Jama testified that Salim Said gave him a daily meal limit of 3,000 and that Safari staff taught him: 'every meal, like meat meal is equal to one person. So if you put four meat choice in there, that's four kids.' He confirmed: 'I was not actually serving 3,000 children every single day seven days a week.' — Direct insider confirmation of the inflation methodology, directly implicating Salim Said as the instructor of the fraud scheme. [p. 1409-1413]

▸

Jama received a Feeding Our Future check for $1,121,514 signed by Aimee Bock, based on inflated meal counts and fake invoices: 'inflated meal counts, fake invoices, all of that.' — Links Bock's signature to fraudulent disbursements and establishes the scale of the scheme for this single cooperating operator. [p. 1436-1437]

▸

Jama testified he paid $42,000 x2, $35,000 x2, and $21,000 to Salim Limited LLC on Salim Said's direction: 'It was Salim. He told you the dollar amount... when to pay it... and whom to pay it to.' — Establishes direct financial connection between site proceeds and Salim Said through a controlled entity. [p. 1439-1441]

▸

Jama identified a management agreement (Exhibit FF29) dated June 1, 2020 between Cosmopolitan Business Solutions and Brava Restaurant that bore what appeared to be his signature: 'Yes, but I don't know how it got there.' He stated he never signed it and the date was inaccurate since he started October 1, 2020. — Suggests Said's group forged Jama's signature on backdated documents — powerful evidence of consciousness of guilt and document fabrication. [p. 1450-1451]

▸

Jama testified that the man in Exhibit Y10, whom he had seen at the Park Avenue office, approached him outside the courtroom the day before and asked him to 'talk in the bathroom,' saying: 'I believe that if you're anyone that's involved in the food program, you don't want to talk to them.' — Government used this as evidence of consciousness of guilt and witness tampering attempt connected to Salim Said's network. [p. 1451-1454]

Cross-Examination

Udoibok's cross for defendant Bock was extremely brief — just three questions establishing that Jama only met Bock once at a group meeting in spring 2021, not through any direct dealing. Colich's cross for Salim Said was more aggressive, attempting to use the January 27, 2025 FBI interview report to impeach Jama on details — specifically that Jama initially described Coley Flynn (a FOF employee) as the person who set the 5,000 meal limit, without mentioning Salim Said's presence, and that Jama admitted he heard about the program because he 'could make a lot of money.' Colich also highlighted Jama's recent (February 12, 2025) pre-trial meeting with prosecutors where new information about Said asking him to sign a contract in 2022 emerged for the first time.

▸

Jama admitted on cross: 'I told them [agents] that I heard about the food program and heard you could make a lot of money.' He agreed he went to Safari to see 'how they were operating' before enrolling. — Undermines the narrative that Jama was an innocent operator who was deceived — he actively sought out the program for profit. [p. 1463-1465]

▸

Colich confronted Jama with the FBI report from January 27, 2025, showing Jama initially attributed the 5,000-meal limit to Coley Flynn calling him directly, without mentioning Salim Said's role as intermediary. Jama's trial testimony added Said's involvement in ways not in the original proffer. — Potential prior inconsistent statement that could undercut the directness of Jama's claims against Said. [p. 1470-1473]

▸

Jama admitted the detail about Said approaching him to sign the June 2020 consulting agreement was 'new information' he provided in the February 12, 2025 meeting with prosecutors — just one week before trial. — New, late-added detail about Said is highly suspicious and suggests coaching or recovered memory; strong impeachment material. [p. 1474-1475]

Vulnerabilities Jama is a convicted fraudster with a clear incentive to cooperate for sentencing leniency — he admitted as much on direct. His prior statements to agents appear to have evolved over time, with material new details (including Said asking him to sign the backdated contract) emerging only in the final pre-trial proffer. His initial statements attributed key communications to Coley Flynn, not Said. He also admitted he actively sought out the program to 'make a lot of money.' There are foundation issues with his 'belief' statements about who did what — the court sustained several foundation objections from Colich. Jama's claim that his signature appeared on a document he never signed was left largely unexplored — no handwriting expert testimony was cited. The forged-signature allegation is a double-edged sword: if false, it fabricates evidence against Said.

For Defense Counsel Aggressively impeach with the evolving proffer statements — the January 27 vs. February 12 interview discrepancies are significant. Explore whether Coley Flynn (FOF employee) was the real initiator of inflated limits, not Said. Challenge whether Jama's 'training' at Safari was actually informal advice from someone he independently sought out, rather than a directed recruitment scheme. The management agreement signature issue should be explored with a handwriting expert. Jama's motive to minimize his own culpability and maximize Said's role is powerful bias evidence — he faces significant sentencing exposure and no promises were made. If defense counsel's client was a site operator, Jama's model suggests operators received direction from Safari/FOF — useful for a duress or good-faith defense.

Travis Wilmer

FBI Special Agent based in Minneapolis; one of the case agents for this investigation since late 2021; testified about Olive Management (St. Cloud), Stigma-Free International St. Cloud, and Stigma-Free International Waite Park food sites and their fraudulent claims, financial flows, and connections to the Safari group.

FBI Government

Direct Examination

Wilmer walked the jury through an exhaustive document review covering three Safari-connected sites in the St. Cloud/Waite Park area. He established the near-instantaneous creation of entities (Olive Management formed September 7, bank account September 8, FOF application September 9, 2020), then walked through monthly meal count submissions from September 2020 through late 2021 showing perfectly uniform meal numbers (3,000/day for CACFP, 2,000/day for SFSP) that he characterized as 'pencil whipped' and 'fake.' He introduced email chains showing TFS Auditors (owned by Salah and Omar-Hashim) submitting inflated meal counts to FOF's claims email, invoice-creation emails showing backdated Hormud invoices being created and then submitted as if contemporaneous, and a document titled 'Safari group' found at 2722 Park Avenue listing all associated sites. He also introduced evidence that Salim Limited LLC received over $1.2 million from Olive Management and that Eidleh Inc. received kickback payments from the same account.

▸

Olive Management was incorporated September 7, 2020; its bank account was opened September 8; Bock emailed MDE a site application September 9. Within weeks, it was claiming ~3,000 meals/day at a location (Hormud Grocery in St. Cloud) Wilmer testified 'is not a restaurant' and is not 'capable of cooking or serving meals.' — Establishes the fraud was operational virtually from day one of the entity's existence — a powerful circumstantial indicator. [p. 1481-1492]

▸

Wilmer testified meal counts for Olive Management showed 'remarkable consistency' — 3,000 prepared every day, just under 3,000 served, 50-80 additional children requesting food after it was gone, same staff initials 'FJ' every day for months including Thanksgiving and Christmas. He called this 'pencil whipped.' — The pattern of implausible consistency is the government's primary statistical argument that no real meal service occurred. [p. 1501-1509]

▸

An email from TFS Auditors' account to Salim Said's email on September 8, 2020 forwarded Olive Management's new business registration information — showing Said received administrative data about the entity one day after it was formed. — Links Said directly to the Olive Management entity from inception, supporting conspiracy liability. [p. 1484-1485]

▸

An email chain (Exhibit E12) showed Ahmed Omar-Hashim (Donyale) drafting invoice line items in an email, then TFS forwarding a 'Revised Hormud Invoice' to Abdulkadir Salah with the message 'How is this one' — on the same day — confirming the invoices were being fabricated internally, not generated by Hormud. — Direct documentary evidence of invoice fabrication — one of the strongest pieces of non-testimonial fraud evidence in this volume. [p. 1535-1539]

▸

Olive Management paid Salim Limited LLC over $1.2 million out of roughly $6 million in food program proceeds, including a $313,000 check on January 18, 2021 — within weeks of the first Feeding Our Future payment. — Establishes Said's financial benefit from the Olive Management fraud, critical for wire fraud and money laundering counts. [p. 1547-1552]

▸

A document titled 'Safari group' found at 2722 Park Avenue listed Olive Management, Safari Restaurant, Stigma-Free, ASA Limited, Brava Restaurant, Horseed Mankato, Tunyar, and Waite Park — with meal numbers next to each site. — Physical documentary evidence of the enterprise's coordinated structure, found at defendants' purchased property. [p. 1599-1601]

▸

At peak claims, the three St. Cloud/Waite Park sites combined were purportedly serving roughly 8,000 meals/day — close to the entire enrollment of St. Cloud Area Public Schools (approximately 9,000 students). Waite Park alone (population 8,000 total) was claiming 2,800+ meals/day to children. — Devastatingly simple statistical argument that the numbers are impossible on their face. [p. 1580-1603]

Cross-Examination

Cross-examination of Wilmer did not begin in this volume — the court adjourned at 4:50 p.m. with direct still ongoing. Wilmer's cross will begin in the next volume.

Vulnerabilities Wilmer's cross has not yet occurred. Key areas for attack: (1) he is not a forensic accountant — his financial conclusions are high-level; (2) his 'pencil whipped' characterization is opinion, not expert testimony, and foundation could be challenged; (3) he repeatedly said invoices 'appear' fabricated based on 'inference' — subjective; (4) he admitted he did not know who actually occupied the Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis address listed as Olive Management's site; (5) the roster comparison to school enrollment data was done without expert testimony and could be challenged on methodology; (6) his testimony about TFS's role, Salim Said's role, and specific dollar amounts attributed to Said rely on chains of inference that the defense has not yet attacked.

For Defense Counsel Challenge the statistical impossibility argument by exploring whether the school enrollment comparison accounted for homeschooled children, private school students, or children from adjacent districts. Explore whether any real meals were served and the books were inflated rather than entirely fictitious. The invoice fabrication email (E12) does not have Salim Said's fingerprints on it — it involves Omar-Hashim and Salah; Said's name appears primarily as a recipient of funds. The consulting agreement (E10) was unsigned. Request the underlying data for the roster name comparison. Challenge Wilmer's characterization of Olive Management as never doing anything legitimate.

Key Evidence

Type	Exhibit	Description	Page	Challenge Opportunity
Document	Gov. Ex. E1	Minnesota Secretary of State Certificate of Incorporation for Olive Management Inc., issued September 7, 2020, incorporating Ahmed Omar-Hashim (a/k/a Salah Donyale) as incorporator, with TFS Auditors email listed for official notices.	[p. 1481]	Incorporation alone is not fraud; many legitimate businesses start quickly. The speed of formation is circumstantial.
Document	Gov. Ex. E2	Email from TFS Auditors to Salim Said's personal email on September 8, 2020 forwarding Olive Management's new business registration information.	[p. 1484]	Receiving a business registration forwarded email is not evidence of fraud — Said could have been a legitimate business contact.
Document	Gov. Ex. E3	Email from Aimee Bock to MDE on September 9, 2020 submitting a site application for Olive Management with an address at 3040 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis — a non-restaurant commercial space.	[p. 1486]	Bock may have relied on documentation submitted by the operator and been unaware of the true nature of the site — relevant to the Bock defense.
Document	Gov. Ex. E7	Email chain showing TFS Auditors submitting Olive Management meal counts for February 2021 to Feeding Our Future's claims email, then forwarding to Eidleh at FOF.	[p. 1524]	TFS was an accounting firm — document submission is a normal business function; does not by itself prove knowledge of fraud.
Document	Gov. Ex. E11 / E12	Email pair: E11 is an email draft from Salah Donyale (Omar-Hashim) dated May 4, 2021 with invoice line items in the body; E12 is a same-day email from TFS to Salah saying 'How is this one' with a revised Hormud invoice attached for a March 2021 period.	[p. 1535-1539]	Omar-Hashim and Salah are the ones implicated here, not Said or Bock directly. Chain of conspiracy must be established.
Financial Record	Gov. Ex. W2 / W198 / W195	Feeding Our Future checks to Brava Restaurant signed by Aimee Bock (W2); Brava Restaurant checks written to Salim Limited LLC on Salim Said's direction for $42,000 x2, $35,000 x2, and $21,000 (W198/W195).	[p. 1436, 1439-1441]	The checks to Salim Limited could reflect legitimate consulting payments absent direct proof they were kickbacks; the consulting agreement was unsigned.
Financial Record	Gov. Ex. W34	Olive Management Wells Fargo bank records showing over $5 million in Feeding Our Future reimbursement checks received, and checks to Salim Limited LLC ($313,000 on January 18, 2021; $80,000 mid-February 2021; $229,000 late February 2021), and to Eidleh Inc.	[p. 1545-1551]	Source of funds and outgoing payments are documented, but the characterization of payments as 'fraudulent proceeds' depends on proving the underlying meal count fraud.
Document	Gov. Ex. FF29	Management Agreement between Cosmopolitan Business Solutions and Brava Restaurant dated June 1, 2020, bearing what appears to be Jama's signature — but Jama testified he never signed it and the date is before his actual program start date of October 1, 2020.	[p. 1449-1451]	No handwriting expert was presented to confirm the forgery. Jama's credibility is at issue. The signature discrepancy is only Jama's say-so.
Document	Gov. Ex. FF2 (page 229)	Physical document titled 'Safari Group' found at 2722 Park Avenue listing all associated food sites including Olive Management, Safari Restaurant, Stigma-Free, ASA Limited, Brava Restaurant, Horseed Mankato, Tunyar, and Waite Park with meal numbers.	[p. 1599-1601]	Author unknown; it is a piece of paper, not a signed document. Defense could argue it was aspirational planning, not evidence of fraud.
Data/Summary	Gov. Ex. E40-E55 (Olive Management monthly claim packets)	Monthly claim packets seized from the Feeding Our Future office showing Olive Management submitted nearly identical meal counts of 3,000/day (CACFP) or 2,000/day (SFSP) for every day of every month from September 2020 through October 2021, with identical staff initials, receipts from unrelated restaurants (Nile Restaurant in Rochester, Baarakallah Restaurant in Minneapolis) mixed into St. Cloud submissions.	[p. 1492-1524]	Individual documents do not prove fraud on their own — the argument depends on inference from pattern. A defense expert on food program operations could potentially explain uniformity as a matter of record-keeping practice rather than fabrication.
Document	Gov. Ex. E10	Email from Abdikadir Mohamud to Salim Said on May 4, 2021 forwarding an unsigned Consulting Agreement between Salim Limited LLC and Olive Management Inc.	[p. 1548-1550]	The agreement was unsigned. Receiving a draft contract is not evidence of fraud.

Legal Rulings & Objections

⚖

Pre-trial: Government sought to elicit testimony about a person connected to Salim Said approaching cooperating witness Jama in the courthouse hallway the day before testimony and asking to 'talk in the bathroom.' Defense objected under FRE 403 (Udoibok) and 404(b) (Montez). Court overruled both objections, ruling the conduct was potentially intrinsic to the fraud scheme, relevant to consciousness of guilt, and that probative value outweighed prejudicial effect. — The court's ruling allowed highly prejudicial witness-tampering evidence into the trial — evidence that appears to implicate Said's associates but risks tainting Bock's defense as well. For defense counsel's client, this ruling illustrates the court's willingness to admit consciousness-of-guilt evidence broadly; any similar incidents should be anticipated and addressed proactively. [p. 1344-1351]

⚖

Multiple foundation objections by Montez during Jama's testimony about 'beliefs' regarding who submitted documents and what the 'Safari group' did were sustained in part and overruled in part. Court required government to lay additional foundation before Jama could testify about others' motivations or actions he did not directly witness. — The court is attentive to foundation requirements for cooperating witnesses making sweeping inferences. Defense should aggressively raise foundation objections when witnesses testify beyond their direct knowledge. [p. 1432-1449]

⚖

Objection by Montez to improper impeachment during Jama's cross-examination (using agent interview reports to question Jama on what he said) was sustained twice, limiting Colich's ability to read from the FBI's 302 reports directly. — The proper method of impeachment with prior inconsistent statements requires the witness to first deny or not recall the statement before the report can be used as extrinsic evidence. This limitation reduced the effectiveness of cross on Jama. [p. 1473-1474]

⚖

Objection by Udoibok to competence and foundation during Muse's direct examination — when she was asked whether she believed thousands of meals could have been provided — was overruled; the court let her answer stand. — The court allowed lay opinion testimony from community witnesses about the plausibility of the claimed meal volumes based on their personal experience in the area. This is a recurring government tactic Defense counsel should anticipate. [p. 1365-1366]

Prior Defense Performance

Udoibok's cross-examination of the two Willmar lay witnesses was adequate but missed opportunities. On Muse, he correctly raised the home-delivery point and the fact she was not actively surveilling the restaurant, but did not pursue the exact hours and days she was absent from the area, or explore any evidence of actual (if smaller-scale) meal distribution. On Christianson, cross was nearly pointless — just three questions. On Jama, Udoibok asked only two questions on cross, confirming Jama met Bock only once at a general group meeting in spring 2021 — arguably the most tactically sound approach given Bock's limited direct dealings with Jama, but it left powerful unchallenged testimony standing. Colich's cross of Jama was more aggressive and substantively productive: he surfaced the evolving proffer statements, the Coley Flynn inconsistency, the 'make a lot of money' admission, and the late-emerging contract-signing allegation. However, Colich was hampered by improper impeachment rulings and did not fully pin down Jama on the inconsistencies between his January 27 and February 12 proffer sessions. Neither defense attorney moved for a limiting instruction regarding the witness-approach incident. Neither attorney challenged the connection between that incident and their specific client with factual specificity. Wilmer's direct cross has not yet begun — this is a major opportunity that will define the government's documentary case.