ST. CROIX — The federal government has filed motions opposing post-trial bids by former Office of Management and Budget Director Jenifer O’Neal and former Police Commissioner Ray Martinez to overturn their corruption convictions, arguing the jury’s guilty verdicts were firmly grounded in evidence and should stand.
The government filed its opposition to O’Neal’s motion on Friday and its opposition to Martinez’s motion on Wednesday. Both were submitted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Cherrisse Amaro on behalf of U.S. Attorney Adam Sleeper.
O’Neal and Martinez were convicted on December 11, 2025, following a weeklong trial in District Court on St. Thomas. Both were found guilty of honest services wire fraud, federal program bribery, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Martinez was additionally convicted of obstruction of justice. Both are scheduled to be sentenced in June.
The case centered on allegations that Martinez used his authority as police commissioner to approve invoices and facilitate a $1.4 million federal contract — funded through American Rescue Plan Act money — for contractor David Whitaker’s company, Mon Ethos Pro Support, in exchange for personal benefits. Those benefits, according to prosecutors, included restaurant equipment, luxury travel, rent payments, private school tuition for his children, and other personal expenses. O’Neal, as OMB director, was accused of approving an inflated invoice under the same contract and later accepting a $17,730 lease payment for her business from the proceeds of that inflated invoice.
O’Neal filed her initial motion for acquittal on December 24, 2025, and her supporting legal brief was filed April 8, a day after the court-extended deadline. Martinez filed a renewed motion for acquittal on April 1, arguing the prosecution’s evidence was legally insufficient.
The government raised a threshold procedural objection in its opposition to O’Neal’s motion because her supporting memorandum was filed a day late, after a court-granted extension expired on April 7. Amaro argued the motion should be dismissed on that basis alone, citing case law holding that courts lack jurisdiction to consider untimely post-trial motions.
The government also argued the merits of O’Neal’s motion fail.
Her attorney had argued that all her convictions depend on the bribery charge, and that the government never proved that the lease payment she received was tied to any official act she agreed to perform. The government called that argument “illogical,” saying the charges against her are legally independent of one another and each carries its own elements. The prosecution argued the bribery evidence was “overwhelming.”
The prosecution pointed to testimony from Whitaker that O’Neal directed a staff member to expedite processing of the inflated Mon Ethos invoice — a directive the staffer followed because it “was a directive” from the OMB director. They also cited Whitaker’s account of an April 6, 2024, meeting in which O’Neal and Martinez discussed using money from the inflated invoice, and in which Whitaker asked O’Neal directly if she wanted her lease payment sent by wire or other means.
The government also rejected O’Neal’s argument that she deserved a separate trial from Martinez. Amaro noted that O’Neal never joined Martinez’s mid-trial motion for severance, never filed her own severance motion before or during trial, and is therefore raising the argument for the first time after the verdict. The government argued she has waived the issue, and that in any case, the two defendants were properly tried together because the evidence showed they conspired with each other. The jury was instructed to consider the evidence against each defendant separately, and the government said it is presumed jurors follow such instructions.
“The defendant has failed to allege any prejudice that could justify the overturning of her convictions based on her joint trial with Martinez,” the motion reads.
Amaro characterized Martinez’s motion as an invitation for the court to “reweigh the evidence, discount the jury’s credibility determinations, and adopt the defendant’s preferred version of the facts.” She argued the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding judgment of acquittal (Rule 29) and new trials (Rule 33) do not permit Martinez’s request.
Martinez’s defense had attacked the credibility of the government’s key cooperating witness, Whitaker, a five-time convicted felon, arguing his testimony was uncorroborated and unreliable. However, the prosecution noted that Whitaker’s account was corroborated by a substantial paper trail, including bank records, invoices, text messages, wire confirmations, and recorded phone calls. The government detailed five specific wire transactions connected to the wire fraud counts that were linked to the bribery scheme through testimony and documentary evidence.
Among the transactions prosecutors highlighted was a $325,912 payment tied to an invoice inflated to cover a Boston trip, supported by a recorded conversation in which Whitaker said he wanted to add money to the invoice and Martinez authorized it. There was also a $216,100 payment following a recorded January 2024 call in which the two discussed adding $70,000 to an invoice — funds the government says were intended to benefit both defendants personally.
The government also addressed Martinez’s argument that his role in the invoice approval process amounted to little more than rubber-stamping decisions made by other agencies. The prosecution argued that corruption frequently occurs within multistep bureaucratic systems, and that Martinez’s approvals and signature on the contract “materially advanced” the payment of invoices regardless of what other layers existed.
On the obstruction counts, the government said the evidence was clear-cut. Recordings captured Martinez telling Whitaker to destroy his phone and laptop after learning of the federal investigation, according to the motion. Additionally, the government noted evidence showed that Martinez went to a friend’s house to type a promissory note — backdated to August 2023 — that he later read to Whitaker over the phone in June 2024, after the investigation became public. Agents confirmed no payments were ever made under that note.
“The defendant’s motion does not expose a clear evidentiary failure,” according to the prosecution’s motion. “It repackages trial arguments the jury already rejected and asks the court to displace the verdict with a more defense-friendly view of the evidence.”
