UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 3:18-cr-73

:

Plaintiff, : Judge Thomas M. Rose

:

v. :

:

KAITLIN E. KOHER(1), :

:

Defendant. :

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELEASE LIQUID ASSETS 

HELD BY OHIO DIRECT DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, FOR THE PURPOSE OF 

RETAINING LEGAL COUNSEL (DOC. 57)

This case is before the Court on the Motion to Release Liquid Assets Held by Ohio Direct 

Distributors, LLC (“O.D.D.”) for the Purpose of Retaining Legal Counsel (Doc. 57) filed by 

Defendant Kaitlin E. Koher (“Ms. Koher”). The Government filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 

58) to the Motion. The Court also scheduled a hearing on this Motion and Ms. Koher’s separate 

Motion to Sever (Doc. 56), but, on the date of the scheduled hearing, both the Government and 

Ms. Koher’s counsel determined that a hearing was not necessary as neither party had any evidence 

or additional argument to present. This matter is therefore ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND

The Indictment charges Ms. Koher with engaging in a conspiracy to commit fraudulent 

financial transactions to obtain funds issued through the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program. (Doc. 10 at PageID# 34-43.) The alleged conspiracy involved O.D.D., a 

“door-to-door route delivery service of various beef, poultry, pork and fish products to retail 

customers located throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and West Virginia.” (Id. at PageID# 
2

36.) On January 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington found probable cause to believe 

that, among other assets, all contents of PNC Bank Account Number ******3287 in the name of 

OHIO DIRECT DISTRIBUTORS are subject to forfeiture to the United States. 

II. ANALYSIS

A defendant’s assets may be restrained before trial “as long as they are restrained based on 

a finding of probable cause to believe that the assets are subject to forfeiture.” United States v. 

Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 405 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 615 

(1989)). Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1), a court may enter a restraining order “upon the filing of an 

indictment or information charging a violation ... for which criminal forfeiture may be ordered.”

The Sixth Circuit approved a procedural framework for addressing challenges to a pre-trial 

restraint of assets—although it did not expressly adopt that framework—in Jamieson. Under that 

framework, a hearing regarding the propriety of the restraint is necessary “only when the defendant 

can (1) ‘demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that she has no assets’ and (2) ‘make a prima facie 

showing of a bona fide reason to believe the grand jury erred in determining that the restrained 

assets constitute or are derived, directly or indirectly, from gross proceeds traceable to the 

commission of the offense.’” Jamieson, 427 F.3d at 406 (quoting United States v. Jones, 160 F.3d 

641, 646-7 (10th Cir. 1998)(internal quotes omitted)). “When the defendant makes the required 

showings, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to establish, by probable cause at an adversarial 

hearing, that the restrained assets are traceable to the underlying offense.” Id. (citing Jones, 160 

F.3d at 647). 

Here, Ms. Koher has not come forward with the prima facie showing required to obtain her 

requested relief. Her counsel asserts that all of O.D.D.’s assets have been seized by the 

Government, but there has been no evidence, through testimony, documentation, or otherwise, to 
3 

establish that fact. Ms. Koher has not made any attempt to show a bona fide reason to believe the 

grand jury erred in determining that the assets in O.D.D.’s bank account are derived from gross 

proceeds traceable to the alleged conspiracy. Thus, she would not be entitled to a hearing on the 

matter under the framework approved by the Sixth Circuit. 

Nonetheless, the Court scheduled a hearing on Ms. Koher’s Motion. At the scheduled time,

however, Ms. Koher’s counsel notified the Court that there was no need for the hearing because 

there was nothing additional to submit for the Court’s consideration. The Court therefore forewent 

the hearing. Without any showing by Ms. Koher, the Government was not required to establish 

probable cause that the restrained assets were traceable to the unlawful activity. In sum, Ms. Koher 

has not carried her burden to obtain the release of O.D.D.’s assets. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Ms. Koher’s Motion to Release Liquid Assets (Doc. 57) is 

DENIED. 

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, December 3, 2018. 

s/Thomas M. Rose 

________________________________ 

THOMAS M. ROSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE