A high-profile federal fraud case involving David and Sasha Charlemagne has taken another contentious turn, as legal teams have clashed over the admissibility of testimony from a key government witness, Morris Anselmi. The dispute centers on Anselmi’s ongoing deposition and the extent to which his own pending criminal charges can be explored during cross-examination.
Anselmi, who faces charges related to alleged misuse of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds, began his court-ordered deposition on April 8. During this session, he acknowledged under questioning that he is cooperating with prosecutors in hopes of receiving immunity. When asked if he anticipated benefits from testifying against David Charlemagne, Anselmi replied, “Well, wouldn’t you?” before confirming with a “Yes.”
The deposition resumed on April 28 but was abruptly halted when Anselmi’s attorney, reportedly following the government’s advice, instructed him not to answer further questions about his own criminal case. The government contends that such inquiries are improper, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 607, 608, and 609, which limit the use of extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness’s credibility.
Defense attorneys argue that the government’s position infringes upon the defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights. David Charlemagne’s counsel, David Cattie, emphasized the necessity of exploring Anselmi’s potential biases and motivations for testifying. “The government called Morris Anselmi as a witness in this case, offered him use immunity for his testimony, and then strongly suggested that his attorney direct him not to answer questions regarding his pending criminal case, his bias, and motives in testifying on cross-examination,” Cattie stated.
Sasha Charlemagne’s attorney, Pamela Colon, echoed these concerns, asserting that the defense is entitled to question Anselmi about his potential biases and motivations. “The questioning sought to elicit evidence of Mr. Anselmi’s bias, prejudice, interest and motivation to testify,” Colon wrote. She further argued that such examination is a constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause.
In response to the impasse, the court has scheduled a status conference to address the objections raised during Anselmi’s deposition. The conference will be held after the transcript from the April 28 session is available, allowing the court to review the specific questions, objections, and responses. Both defense teams have requested that the conference be scheduled after May 7, when the transcript is expected to be ready.
The case against the Charlemagnes stems from a two-year federal investigation into a contract awarded by the Virgin Islands Housing Finance Authority for the storage and management of lumber intended for reconstruction efforts following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. Prosecutors allege that David Charlemagne, the Education Department’s former maintenance director, received inflated payments for storing the wood through his company D&S Trucking, at a rent-free government-owned facility while he was employed. The couple is accused of using the funds for personal expenses, including credit card payments and cash transfers.
Both David and Sasha Charlemagne have pleaded not guilty to charges including fraud concerning programs receiving federal funds, wire fraud, and money laundering conspiracy. If convicted, they face significant prison time and financial penalties.
