VIII. Defenses
Sixth Circuit
• Severance of Counts in Indictment
U.S. v. Tran, 04-1801 (1/5/06)
> Defendant was convicted of two counts of aiding and abetting arson of two of defendant’s businesses. Prior to trial, defendant moved for a severance of the two counts into separate trials. The district court denied the motion, and defendant appealed.
* Holding: First, the court held that joinder of the two offenses was proper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a), which permits offenses to be joined where they are of the same or similar character, are based on the same act or transaction, or are part of a common scheme. The court found that the businesses burned were both owned by defendant, were burned within 18 months of each other, and were located in neighboring communities. Further, the court noted that both fires were caused by flammable liquids with acetone being the accelerant, defendant filed an insurance claim after each fire, and there was significant overlap of witnesses for each charge. As such, joinder was proper. Second, the court held that severance was not required under Rule 14, which requires severance if defendant will be unduly prejudiced by a joinder of offenses. The court found that defendant could show no evidence of prejudice as a result of the joinder. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.
• Fed.R.Crim.P.14(a)-Severance of Counts
U.S. v. Atchley, 04-6521 (1/23/07)
> Defendant was charged with two counts of manufacturing meth, one count of using a firearm in relation to drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). Defendant moved to sever the three firearm charges from the drug counts and the district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: Rule 14(a) permits a court to sever counts of an indictment if the defendant would suffer undue prejudice as a result of their joinder. In the case, the court first found that the § 924(c) charge was inextricably intertwined with the meth counts, and thus was properly joined. Second, the court ruled that, although the § 922(g) charges presented a “closer question,” they were nonetheless properly joined because defendant stipulated that he was a convicted felon, thus minimizing potential prejudice, and because the district court gave a proper limiting instruction to the jury regarding its use of the prior conviction only for the § 922(g) counts. Accordingly, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Severance of Counts in Indictment
U.S. v. Cody, 06-6003 (8/16/07)
> Defendant was charged with two armed robberies and an armed escape from custody. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to sever the escape charge from the armed robbery charges. The district court denied the motion, defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
* Holding: Fed. R. Crim. P. 8 permits joinder of offenses where they are of the same or similar character, are based on the same transaction, or are part of a common scheme. Rule 8 is construed in favor of joinder, but if none of the requirements of the Rule are satisfied, the offenses must be severed. In addition to Rule 8, Rule 14 permits severance of charges if a party would be prejudiced by the joinder. In the case, the court held that even if joinder of the offenses was improper, any error was harmless because the district court provided a satisfactory limiting instruction indicating that the jury must consider each charge separately. Further, the jury acquitted defendant of one of the robberies, so it was clear that the jury was able to compartmentalize the offenses. Thus, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Severance of Defendants
U.S. v. Gardiner, 05-1247 (9/12/06)
> Defendant was charged in a RICO conspiracy and went to trial with a codefendant. Prior to trial, defendant moved to sever his trial from the codefendant’s because the evidence against the codefendant was overwhelming and would unduly prejudice defendant. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In order to prevail on a motion for severance, a defendant must show “compelling, specific, and actual prejudice.” The court held that severance is not warranted where the proof is greater against a codefendant. Thus, the conviction was affirmed.
• Severance of Defendants
U.S. v. Caver, 05-3295 (12/04/06)
> Defendant was charged in a drug conspiracy and moved to sever his case from that of the codefendants. Defendant claimed that he would suffer prejudice as a result of being joined with the codefendants because they were involved in larger amounts of drugs than defendant, and they had threatened government witnesses. The district court denied the motion, defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
* Holding: Where defendants are indicted together and the charges will be proved by the same evidence and result from the same acts, a strong presumption favors a joint trial. A defendant may overcome the presumption only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right or prevent the jury from making a reliable trial determination. In the case, the court found that the codefendants were involved in only a slightly larger amount of narcotics than defendant and the evidence was sufficiently clear that defendant had no involvement with the violent threats. Thus, the court held that defendant suffered no substantial prejudice as a result of the joint trial and affirmed the conviction.
• Severance of Defendants
U.S. v. Graham, 05-2332 (4/20/07)
> Defendant was charged along with a codefendant for conspiracy and multiple fraud related counts. Defendant moved to sever his trial from the codefendant’s because the overwhelming evidence at trial pertained to the codefendant and because defendant claimed that their defenses were antagonistic. The district court denied the motion, defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
* Holding: The severance of defendants is not required simply because proof against one defendant is stronger unless a defendant can show specific, actual, or compelling prejudice. In the case, the court held that defendant was unable to show prejudice and the conviction was affirmed.
• Rule 8(b)/14(a) - Severance of Defendants
U.S. v. Driver, 04-4470 (8/1/08)
> Defendant was a member of the Outlaw Motorcycle Club (OMC) who was charged along with numerous other OMC members with RICO and drug conspiracy crimes. Defendant moved to sever his trial from that of his codefendants because they committed acts of violence that would be imputed to him by the jury. The district court denied the motion, defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
* Holding: In order to obtain a severance of defendants who were otherwise properly joined in an indictment, a defendant must show “compelling, specific, and actual prejudice from the court’s refusal to grant the motion to sever.” In the case, the court held that the district court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury that it should consider the evidence against each defendant separately, and defendant was not able to show specific prejudice as a result of the joint trial. Thus, the district court ruling denying severance was affirmed.