Professional Documents
Culture Documents
for Severance.
I. Introduction
924(c)(1)(A)(I).
2
establish that each of the three defendants charged with
2.
F.3d 44, 54 (1st Cir. 2007) the First Circuit recently reaffirmed
v. Houle, 237 F.3d 71, 75-76 (1st Cir.2001)). See also, e.g.
3
defendant Riley to make a convincing showing of prejudice.
United States v. Vega Molina, 407 F.3d 511, 531 (1st Cir. 2005)
(citing United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1990)).
Sutherland, 929 F.2d 765, 778 (1st Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.,
1
Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b) provides:
4
defendant demonstrates that joinder will prevent him from
(1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Tejeda, 974 F.2d 210, 219 (1st
Cir. 1992); United States v. Perkins, 926 F.2d 1271, 1280 (1st
Cir. 1991); United States v. Alemany Rivera, 781 F.2d 229, 238
Defendant Riley has not raised, has not briefed and has not
5
Severance. Nonetheless, the government submits that a
Martinez, 922 F.2d 914, 922 (1st Cir. 1991) ("[a]t the trial
cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 531 (1990). This requires the defendant
v. Martinez, 922 F.2d 914, 922 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting United
States v. Martinez, 479 F.2d 824, 828 (1st Cir. 1973)); United
States v. Moreno Morales, 815 F.2d 725, 741 (1st Cir.), cert.
6
evidence against another defendant. United States v. Cresta,
825 F.2d 538, 554-55 (1st Cir. 1987) (fact that a substantial
486 U.S. 1042 (1988); United States v. Silvestri, 790 F.2d 186,
189 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 857 (1986); United States
v. Smolar, 557 F.2d 13, 18 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S.
States v. Martinez, 922 F.2d 914, 922 (1st Cir. 1991); United
States v. Cresta, 825 F.2d 538, 554-555 (1st Cir. 1987), cert.
denied sub nom., Impemba v. United States, 486 U.S. 1042 (1988).
In United States v. Cresta, 825 F.2d 538 (1st Cir. 1987), cert.
denied sub nom., Impemba v. United States, 486 U.S. 1042 (1988),
stating:
7
plays a minor role and that a substantial portion of
the evidence is not directly related to the defendant,
does not make it automatically unlawful to try him
with more important figures. United States v. Rawwad,
807 F.2d 294, 295 (1st Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482
U.S. 909 (1987). There is a possible risk of
prejudice that almost always exists when multiple
defendants with different roles are tried together,
but here defendants have failed to show anything
greater. See United States v. Palow, 777 F.2d 52, 56
(1st Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1052 (1986).
Furthermore, the trial court judge made clear to the
jury in the instructions that they must consider the
evidence separately against each defendant and on each
count. See United States v. Luna, 585 F.2d 1, 5 (1st
Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 852 (1978) . . . We
believe that these jury instructions sufficiently
safe-guarded the appellants against "spillover" from
their co-defendants' cases. See United States v.
Rawwad, supra, 807 F.2d at 296. This trial of ten
defendants on a two-count indictment charging all of
them with two closely related conspiracies arising out
of the same events and evidence clearly called for a
consolidated proceeding.
957 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Tejeda, 974
F.2d 210, 219 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Alemany Rivera,
781 F.2d 229, 238 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1086
8
maintenance of the heavy burden of showing substantial prejudice
States v. Palow, 777 F.2d 52, 56 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. denied,
v. Figueroa, 976 F.2d 1446, 1452 (1st Cir. 1992), the First
9
The government's witness list in the trial of the present
who will testify concerning not only defendant Riley, but other
the defendant are the same witnesses who will testify regarding
632, 643 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 (1980).
10
III. Conclusion
January 7, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS P. COLANTUONO
United States Attorney
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
11