Opinion ID: 4470957
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Photographs of Soca-Fernandez’s House

Text: At trial, the government introduced into evidence two photos of Soca-Fernandez’s home in Tampa, Florida, where she lived with Sosa-Baladron and their children. The district court overruled Soca-Fernandez’s objection, finding that the probative value of the photos was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court reasoned that “[i]t’s natural to present evidence of possible expenditures by defendants in terms of how they are spending money from the alleged fraud,” and that the jury should see the evidence. DE 369, Trial Tr. Vol. VI, Page ID 3309. We first address relevance. Soca-Fernandez correctly points out that the home has no direct connection to this case beyond the fact that Soca-Fernandez and Sosa-Baladron lived there during the years in which they were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the insurance companies through their clinics. Despite the lack of a direct connection to the fraud scheme and conspiracy, the photographs of the home are relevant as evidence of unexplained wealth. See Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d at 378. A court may admit this “lifestyle evidence” if three factors are satisfied: “(1) there is other credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the illegal activity; (2) the money spent was not available to the defendant from a legitimate source; and (3) the accumulation of great wealth or extravagant spending relates to the period of the alleged illegal activity.” Id. The government introduced credible evidence in the form of numerous witnesses who testified that Soca-Fernandez participated in the fraud scheme and shared in its profits. There was no evidence that SocaFernandez had other sources of income to make her monthly mortgage payments of $2,300. Finally, even though the purchase of the house predated the opening of the first clinic, SocaFernandez owned and lived in the house during the period of the conspiracy and fraud scheme. - 21 - Nos. 17-1987/2032, United States v. Sosa-Baladron, et al. The lack of a direct connection between the house—as portrayed in the photos at trial— and Soca-Fernandez’s illegal activity does not negate the admissibility of the photos as lifestyle, or unexplained wealth, evidence. “While demonstrating a direct connection would certainly enhance the probative value of such evidence, it is not necessary.” Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d at 379. What is important is a “natural connection” from which the jury may reasonably infer that the funds derived from the illegal activity financed the subject of the wealth evidence. See United States v. Amerine, 411 F.2d 1130, 1132 (6th Cir. 1969). Here, a jury could reasonably infer a natural connection between Soca-Fernandez’s home and the proceeds of her fraud scheme. Because the photos of the home support this inference, they satisfy the “extremely liberal” standard of relevance this court applies. See Ramer, 883 F.3d at 681. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in determining that the photos were relevant. Turning to unfair prejudice, we now ask whether the probative value of the photos is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The balancing test of Rule 403 “is strongly weighted toward admission.” United States v. Asher, 910 F.3d 854, 860 (6th Cir. 2018). We must “review the admitted evidence ‘in the light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Carney, 387 F.3d 436, 451 (6th Cir. 2004). Soca-Fernandez argues that the photos were unduly prejudicial because the government theorized that her “nice home” must have been financed by the cash profits of the fraud scheme. CA6 R. 39, Soca-Fernandez Br., at 61. In closing, the government alluded to the photos when it argued that Soca-Fernandez and Sosa-Baladron implemented the fraud scheme in Michigan so they could “sit on their beach in their beautiful Florida home, and never come back.” DE 370, Trial Tr. Vol. VII, Page ID 3548. Her argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, Soca- - 22 - Nos. 17-1987/2032, United States v. Sosa-Baladron, et al. Fernandez did not object to this statement. Second, closing argument is not evidence. And while “the government may not rely on prejudicial facts not in evidence when making its closing arguments,” United States v. Roach, 502 F.3d 425, 434 (6th Cir. 2007), the government did not do so here. The prosecutor indirectly referenced Soca-Fernandez’s home in closing, and the fact that Soca-Fernandez lived in a “nice home” was in evidence. CA6 R. 39, Soca-Fernandez Br., at 61. Giving the photos their maximum probative value and minimal prejudicial effect, their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photos of Soca-Fernandez’s home into evidence.