IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 13-0117-CG

 )

YAMAN SENCAN, DAVID PETERSEN, )

and STEPHEN MERRY, )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the United States’ Motion in Limine (doc. 51), the 

United States’ Motion to Exclude Unproduced Defense Evidence and Expert Opinion Testimony 

(doc. 52), and defendant Stephen Merry’s Motion to Strike Surplusage and Motion in Limine to 

Exclude Use of the Terms “Ponzi Scheme” or “Ponzi Payments” (doc. 67).

With respect to the Government’s Motion in Limine and Motion to Exclude, the 

undersigned entered an Order (doc. 59) on November 22, 2013 directing defendants to file 

responses on or before December 2, 2013. No defendants filed any response, articulated any 

objection to the Government’s Motions, or otherwise acknowledged the November 22 briefing 

schedule. The Court therefore assumes these Motions are unopposed.

The Motion in Limine has three distinct prongs. First, the Government seeks to preclude 

defendants from “attempt[ing] to place a defendant’s alleged exculpatory statements before the 

jury without the defendant himself taking the stand and being subjected to cross-examination.” 

(Doc. 51, at 2.) The file contains no indication that defendants intend to do so. Even if they did 

harbor such an intention, such a maneuver would be fraught with obvious hearsay problems as to 

which defendants have identified no exception. Second, the Government seeks to bar defendants 

from making any “[r]eferences to the possibility of imprisonment or other references to penalties 

that may be imposed” as an improper appeal to juror sympathy. (Id. at 5.) There appears to be 

no reason to believe that defendants plan to make such an argument or to adduce any such 

evidence. At any rate, the Court includes as part of its standard jury charge specific instructions 

that the jurors must not consider punishment in any way and that they must not be influenced by 

Case 1:13-cr-00117-WS-C Document 92 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 4
-2-

either sympathy for or prejudice against the Government or the defense. The defense will not be 

permitted to present evidence or argument that conflicts with these instructions. Third, the 

Government requests that the defense be barred from presenting evidence or argument 

“concerning any specific instances of prior non-criminal conduct.” (Id. at 6.) Once again, there 

is no indication that any defendant intends to do so, much less that any such attempt might be 

reconciled with Rule 405, Fed.R.Evid. For all of these reasons, the Government’s Motion in 

Limine (doc. 51) is granted.

1

The Government’s Motion to Exclude Unproduced Defense Evidence and Expert 

Opinion Testimony indicates that defendants have not furnished the Government with any 

reciprocal discovery pursuant to Local Rule 16.13(b)(4), that defendants have not responded to 

the Government’s request for expert witness information, and that the relevant deadlines have

expired. Again, defendants did not respond to this Motion, and apparently have never indicated 

that they will seek to introduce previously non-disclosed evidence during trial or that they have 

retained expert witnesses to offer opinions at trial. These appear to be non-issues. The Motion 

to Exclude (doc. 52) is granted.

Defendant Stephen Merry has also filed a Motion wherein he requests that all references 

to a “Ponzi scheme” or “Ponzi payments” in the Indictment be stricken as surplusage, pursuant to 

Rule 7(d), Fed.R.Crim.P. Merry further requests that the Government be precluded from 

utilizing such terms at trial on the ground that this terminology is pejorative, inflammatory, 

irrelevant and prejudicial. The Government opposes the Motion on multiple grounds.

As a threshold matter, Merry’s characterization of the phrase “Ponzi scheme” as 

irrelevant to the charged offenses is not accurate. Contrary to Merry’s argument, the term “Ponzi 

scheme” is not narrowly confined to a description of the particular conduct of one Charles Ponzi 

nearly a century ago; rather, the term is widely embraced and understood in jurisprudence and 

 1 By all appearances, the Government filed this Motion in Limine as a 

precautionary measure, without defendants having suggested that they planned to bring in 

evidence of their own out-of-court statements via cross-examination of other witnesses, that they 

intended to mention the possibility of imprisonment to arouse the jury’s sympathy, or that they 

desired to present evidence of specific instances of prior non-criminal conduct. Both the Court’s 

and the parties’ time are most efficiently spent on pretrial motion practice addressing real 

evidentiary issues or problems that are actually anticipated to arise during the trial, rather than 

prophylactic, “abundance-of-caution” measures.

Case 1:13-cr-00117-WS-C Document 92 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 4
-3-

common parlance alike as describing a fraudulent investment scheme in which payments of new 

investors are repackaged as “investment returns” paid out to old investors to create an illusion of 

legitimacy and profitability, even though the subject funds are not actually being invested.

2

 The 

Indictment charges defendants with engaging in a fraudulent investment scheme possessing 

those very characteristics. (See doc. 1, ¶¶ 6-7, 13(f), 13(h), 13(j).) Whatever else may be said, 

the term “Ponzi scheme” in the Indictment is neither irrelevant nor unfairly prejudicial to 

defendants. Rather, it is a fair description of the alleged conduct underlying the specific offenses

that defendants are charged with committing and that the Government hopes to prove at trial. 

This phrase is not surplusage that should be stricken pursuant to Rule 7(d). See United States v. 

Awan, 966 F.2d 1415, 1426 (11th Cir. 1992) (“A motion to strike surplusage from an indictment 

should not be granted unless it is clear that the allegations are not relevant to the charge and are 

inflammatory and prejudicial.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Nor will the 

Court restrict the Government from using this terminology in the presence of the jury to describe 

the charged offenses and the Government’s theory of wrongdoing. Defendant Merry’s Motion to 

Strike Surplusage and Motion in Limine (doc. 67) is denied.

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered as follows:

1. The Government’s Motion in Limine (doc. 51) concerning introduction by the 

defense of hearsay statements by defendants, references to penalty or 

 2 See, e.g., In re Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, P.A., 717 F.3d 1205, 1207 n.5 (11th

Cir. 2013) (“The modus operandi of a Ponzi scheme is to use newly invested money to pay off 

old investors and convince them that they are earning profits rather than losing their shirts.”) 

(citation omitted); Peterson v. Winston & Strawn LLP, 729 F.3d 750, 751 (7th Cir. 2013) 

(“Petters was running a Ponzi scheme in which new investments were used to pay off older 

investments rather than to finance an operational business.”); Marion v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 

2013 WL 2097420, *1 (3rd Cir. May 16, 2013) (“A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud in which 

investors are paid off, not with returns generated by their investments – because their money 

usually is converted, not invested – but with revenue generated from later investors.”); 

Commodity Futures Trading Com’n v. Walsh, 712 F.3d 735, 739 (2nd Cir. 2013) (explaining that 

defendants conducted their business “as a Ponzi scheme” because they “issued fraudulent 

account statements to their investors, withdrew invested moneys in order to spend lavishly on 

themselves, and funded investor withdrawals with moneys received from other investors when 

there were no earnings”). Outside of the legal context, the term has a similar meaning. For 

example, Oxford Dictionaries Online defines “Ponzi scheme” as “a form of fraud in which belief 

in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first 

investors from money invested by later investors.”

Case 1:13-cr-00117-WS-C Document 92 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 4
-4-

imprisonment, or evidence of specific instances of prior non-criminal conduct is 

granted;

2. The Government’s Motion to Exclude Unproduced Defense Evidence and Expert 

Opinion Testimony (doc. 52) is granted; and

3. Defendant Stephen Merry’s Motion to Strike Surplusage and Motion in Limine to 

Exclude Use of the Terms “Ponzi Scheme” or “Ponzi Payments” (doc. 67) is

denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2013.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cr-00117-WS-C Document 92 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 4