DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
)  
Criminal No. 2022-0009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
MAXWELL BRYAN, ELVIN BLOICE, and  
) 
JAHMISHA BETHELMIE, 
 
 
)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Defendants.  
 
) 
__________________________________________) 
 
Attorneys: 
Evan Rikhye, Esq., 
Daniel H. Huston, Esq., 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For the United States 
 
Gabriel J. Villegas, Esq., 
Lisa L. Brown Williams, Esq., 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
For Defendant Maxwell Bryan 
 
Juan F. Matos-de Juan, Esq., 
San Juan, Puerto Rico 
For Defendant Elvin Bloice 
 
Miguel Oppenheimer, Esq., 
San Juan, Puerto Rico 
For Defendant Jahmisha Bethelmie 
 
ORDER 
 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the United States’ “Motion in Limine to Admit 
Rule 404(b) Evidence” (“Motion”) (Dkt. No. 116) and Defendant Maxwell Bryan’s Opposition 
thereto (Dkt. No. 118). This Order memorializes a ruling from the bench denying the Motion at 
the Pre-trial Conference in this matter held on September 13, 2023.  
 
In its ruling, the Court concluded that, even assuming there was a permitted non-propensity 
purpose under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence for the prior bad act allegedly 
Case: 1:22-cr-00009-WAL-EAH     Document #: 179     Filed: 09/14/23     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
committed by Defendant, any probative value of the testimony would be substantially outweighed 
by the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendant. As described in greater detail in the ruling from 
the bench—which is incorporated by reference and summarized herein—the Court’s conclusion 
was based on several factors. 
 
First, the probative value of the testimony sought by the United States was diminished 
because (1) the testimony pertained to one alleged prior bad act and did not form a pattern of 
conduct by Defendant; (2) the alleged prior bad act occurred six years before the underlying 
conduct charged in the instant matter and did not, therefore, occur in close proximity to the conduct 
at issue; and (3) the alleged prior bad act was unsubstantiated. Specifically, the United States 
represented that aside from the testimony of the proposed witness, there was no investigation, no 
report, and no findings made by a disciplinary body to substantiate the allegations of the prior bad 
act.  
Second, the proposed testimony of the United States’ witness presented a significant danger 
of unfair prejudice to Defendant because a jury may believe that because Defendant allegedly 
committed the prior bad act, he was therefore guilty of the conduct charged in this matter. 
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the United States’ proposed 
testimony substantially outweighed its probative value and was therefore not admissible under 
Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 404(b) for use in the United States’ case in chief.  
Case: 1:22-cr-00009-WAL-EAH     Document #: 179     Filed: 09/14/23     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that the United States’ “Motion in Limine to Admit Rule 404(b) Evidence” 
(Dkt. No. 116) is DENIED. 
 
SO ORDERED. 
Date:  September 14, 2023 
 
 
 
 
_______/s/_______ 
WILMA A. LEWIS 
District Judge 
 
Case: 1:22-cr-00009-WAL-EAH     Document #: 179     Filed: 09/14/23     Page 3 of 3