ST. CROIX — Morris Anselmi, a government witness in the case against Davidson and Sasha Charlemagne that is tied to the alleged theft of disaster relief program funds, discussed his desire during a deposition to receive benefits in his own fraud case in exchange for testimony against the Charlemagnes, according to court documents.
Attorney David Cattie, who represents Davidson Charlemagne, indicated in a court document filed Wednesday that he asked Anselmi various questions during a deposition regarding his bias, motivations, and benefits he hoped to receive for testifying on behalf of the government. Cattie noted the government offered Anselmi immunity for his testimony. He also noted the government strongly suggested that Anselmi’s attorney, Scot McChain, direct him not to answer questions regarding his pending criminal case.
Attorney Pamela Colon, who represents Sasha Charlemagne, provided more details in a court document she filed Wednesday regarding the responses Anselmi gave Cattie while discussing the Charlemagne’s case and the charges against himself and co-defendant Kimberly McCollum in a separate case for allegedly stealing $500,000 in coronavirus relief funds through the Paycheck Protection Program
Anselmi is tied to the Charlemagne’s case because he co-owns Island Services Group along with McCollum. The Charlemagnes are both charged with money laundering conspiracy connected to the alleged theft of federal funds received for the storage of lumber shipped to the territory to repair hurricane-damaged homes. Davidson Charlemagne, who owns D&S Trucking, allegedly proposed for Island Services Group to submit a bid to manage the wood, with D&S Trucking serving as the subcontractor.
Cattie questioned Anselmi on April 8 about the allegations against him as well as his cooperation with the government. The following testimony was elicited without objection:
“You’ve been in discussions with the government about cooperating against Mr. Charlemagne in exchange for benefits in your pending PPP fraud case; is that correct?” Cattie asked.
“Only the immunity,” Anselmi replied.
“OK,” Cattie said. “And you are hopeful that by providing information against Mr. Charlemagne, that you will receive some benefit from the government; is that correct?”
“Well, wouldn’t you?” Anselmi replied.
“Is that a yes?” Cattie asked.
“Yes,” Anselmi said.
Cattie continued to ask Anselmi if he was facing severe financial penalties related to alleged PPP fraud in addition to potentially facing imprisonment.
“I’m not sure about that,” Anselmi replied.
Cattie asked Anselmi if it was his testimony that he had no knowledge of whether he would have to pay restitution related to the alleged PPP fraud. Anselmi said that he did not have to pay any restitution to his knowledge.
Although Cattie began his cross-examination on April 8, he did not finish because Anselmi stated he could not continue due to his medical condition. Cattie continued his cross-examination when the deposition resumed Monday. The government objected to that portion of the cross-examination.
The documents that Cattie and Colon filed Wednesday were in response to a motion the prosecution filed Monday requesting an expedited status conference prior to proceeding further with cross-examination. While Cattie has not yet finished his cross-examination, Colon has not yet begun hers.
The prosecution, in its motion submitted Monday by Assistant U.S. Attorney Denise George, argued the requested status conference was needed for the court to resolve the issue on whether questions about Anselmi’s separate and unrelated criminal matter are authorized or prohibited under the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding impeachment in order to move forward with the deposition. Cattie and Colon agreed to the need of the court’s ruling to resolve the dispute before proceeding further with their cross-examinations.
Colon, in her response to the government’s motion, argued the defendants are entitled to question Anselmi about what he hoped to obtain by testifying for the government under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. She argued that the issue is, therefore, broader than the applicability of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Cattie has requested the transcript from Monday’s deposition and was advised that the court reporter would try to make it available by May 7. Colon requested the status conference not occur until the transcript has been received so that the court can review the exact questions, objections, and responses.
