Opinion
Case No. 15-CR-30016-SMY
10-22-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LAMARCUS DEVON JACKSON Defendant.
ORDER YANDLE, District Judge :
Pending before the Court is Defendant Lamarcus Devon Jackson's Motion to Sever (Doc. 142). The Government does not oppose the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) allows the joinder of two or more defendants in a single trial. There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Joint trials promote efficiency and go far to prevent the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts among co-defendants. Id. However, Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a court may sever co-defendants' trials if a defendant or the government is prejudiced by such a joinder. Working together, "Rules 8(b) and 14 are designed 'to promote economy and efficiency and to avoid a multiplicity of trials, [so long as] these objectives can be achieved without substantial prejudice to the right of the defendants to a fair trial.' " Id. at 540 (quoting Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 131 n. 6, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (internal quotations omitted)).
A court should grant severance under Rule 14(a) only if "there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." Id. at 539. Rule 14(a) leaves the determination of risk of prejudice from a joint trial and any remedy that may be necessary to the sound discretion of the district court. Id. Serious risks that may warrant severance occur, for example, where the government introduces a co-defendant's statement that inculpates the defendant but where the co-defendant does not testify and is therefore unavailable for the defendant to exercise his confrontation clause rights by cross-examining him. See Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).
Here, the Superseding Indictment asserts allegations against multiple charged co-defendants relating to several alleged armed robberies. Defendant Jackson indicates that, based on the discovery tendered in this matter, several of the charged co-defendants have made statements which may be used at trial and which implicate themselves and others charged in this case. The Court finds that a joint trial under these circumstances creates a serious risk of prejudice to Defendant Jackson's rights. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Jackson's motion to sever.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) and (H), the Court finds that the period from October 7, 2015, the date Defendant filed the Motion to Sever, up to and including the date of this order, allows a reasonable period for prompt resolution of the motion and is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act. See Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 329-31, 106 S.Ct. 1871, 90 L.Ed.2d 299 (1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 22, 2015
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge