Trial II · 22cr223

Vol XXII

2025-03-19

Day Overview

Volume XXII is the verdict and immediate post-verdict proceeding held on the afternoon of March 19, 2025, beginning at 2:37 p.m. The jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts against both defendants: Aimee Marie Bock was convicted on Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 12 (wire fraud/conspiracy), 15 (conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery), and 40 (federal programs bribery); Salim Ahmed Said was convicted on Counts 1, 2, 5, 8, 12 (wire fraud/conspiracy), 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38 (federal programs bribery), 41 (conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering), 42, 44, 51, 52, and 57 (engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property). The Court polled all twelve jurors individually, each confirmed the verdicts as their true and correct verdicts. Immediately following, Judge Brasel granted the government's motion to revoke pretrial release for both defendants and remanded them to custody, articulating four specific factors supporting detention. defense counsel should study the court's detention rationale closely as it previews how Judge Brasel views both defendants' character and the severity of the anticipated sentence.

Government Strategy

Volume XXII contains no trial testimony or evidentiary presentation. The government's role in this session was limited to post-verdict proceedings: receiving the jury's guilty verdicts and moving to revoke both defendants' pretrial release pending sentencing. Prosecutor Thompson argued that under 18 U.S.C. 3143(a) the presumption of detention applies and that neither defendant could rebut it by clear and convincing evidence, citing the nature of the fraud scheme (deception and forged documents) and the strong incentive to flee given anticipated substantial sentences.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The government achieved full conviction on every count for both defendants in Trial 2. There were no partial acquittals, no hung counts. Defense counsel must treat this as a near-total government win and calibrate his defense strategy accordingly — the narrative, the evidence, and the jury instructions all worked for the prosecution. - Judge Brasel's four-factor detention analysis reveals how she views these defendants: as deliberate deceivers who used forged documents and defied authority throughout an 18-month scheme. This framing will almost certainly carry into sentencing and any future trial she presides over. Defense counsel should anticipate a judge who is deeply skeptical of any argument minimizing the defendants' culpability or character. - The reference to 'heightened security' and 'events during the trial' that required increased security is unexplained in this volume but clearly influenced the court's view. Defense counsel must investigate what occurred — whether courtroom incidents, threats, or other conduct — as these events may have poisoned the well with both the court and the jury and could be grounds for new trial motions in a related case. - The breadth of Said's conviction (22 counts including money laundering) versus Bock's (7 counts) illustrates that the government differentiated between defendants in charging and the jury tracked those distinctions. Defense counsel should study how the government parsed individual culpability to understand the evidentiary vulnerabilities for his own client. - Volume XXI is missing from the available transcripts. Given that this volume begins at page 5029 and is the verdict, Volume XXI almost certainly contains closing arguments, jury instructions, and potentially the beginning of deliberations — all of which are critical for understanding what the jury was told and how the government framed its closing narrative. Obtaining Volume XXI must be a priority.

Legal Rulings & Objections

⚖

Jury verdict published: Aimee Marie Bock found guilty on Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 15, and 40. Salim Ahmed Said found guilty on Counts 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 51, 52, and 57. All twelve jurors individually polled and confirmed unanimity. — Full conviction on all charged counts for both defendants. No acquittals on any count. The breadth of Said's convictions — including money laundering and over a dozen bribery counts — signals enormous sentencing exposure and underscores the government's successful framing of the scheme as systemic and deliberate. [p. 5031-5035]

⚖

Court granted government's motion under 18 U.S.C. 3143(a) to revoke pretrial release for both defendants pending sentencing. Judge Brasel found the presumption of detention had not been rebutted, focusing on flight risk. Four factors articulated: (1) fraud scheme premised on deception including forged/fraudulent documents, raising concern defendants could use similar deception to flee; (2) real possibility of a high sentence creates strong incentive to flee; (3) evidence at trial showed both defendants displayed patterns of deception over an 18-month period and an absolute inability to comply with authority; (4) heightened security was required throughout and increased during the trial. — Judge Brasel's written-quality reasoning signals she views the defendants as high-risk and has already internalized the government's narrative about their character. The reference to 'absolute inability to comply with authority' and 'events during the trial' requiring increased security is notable — Defense counsel should investigate what those in-trial events were, as they may have prejudiced the court's view of the defendants and could inform post-conviction motions or sentencing arguments. [p. 5041-5043]

⚖

Court ordered that any motion for judgment of acquittal or motion for new trial must be filed within 14 days of the verdict, with the possibility of relief from that deadline on written motion. — The 14-day window for Rule 29/33 motions is live. Defense counsel for defense counsel's client in any future trial must track these deadlines carefully. The court indicated willingness to extend, but a written request is required. [p. 5043-5044]

⚖

Court directed that attorneys may not contact jurors without first obtaining the court's permission; if a juror reaches out to defense counsel, counsel must call the court first. — Any effort by defense counsel to investigate jury deliberations or contact jurors post-verdict in his own case will require judicial permission. This is a binding local rule constraint that could limit post-verdict intelligence gathering. [p. 5043-5044]

Prior Defense Performance

In this post-verdict proceeding, defense counsel had limited room to act. Udoibok's argument for Bock's continued release was brief and adequate — noting compliance with release conditions for over two years, no passport, residence with parents, and lack of access to re-offend — but did not engage substantively with the statutory framework or cite any specific Eighth Circuit authority to counteract the government's position. Montez's argument for Said was similarly thin: he acknowledged the serious convictions, argued the crimes posed no inherent public danger, noted Said's compliance throughout the trial, and made an emotional plea about Said needing to say goodbye to his children. Neither attorney mounted a factual or legal challenge strong enough to rebut the statutory presumption. Neither offered specific evidence — letters, declarations, financial disclosures, or community ties documentation — that might constitute 'clear and convincing evidence' under the statute. The court appeared to have already decided before argument began, given the comment that it had thought about the factors 'carefully before today's verdict.' In retrospect, both defenses would have benefited from pre-verdict preparation of a robust detention opposition filing.