Opinion
Case No. 2:14-cr-107(5)
01-05-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOEY L. JARRELL, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter came on for consideration upon Defendant's Motion for Relief from Prejudicial Joinder (ECF No. 77) filed on November 17, 2014 and upon the Government's Consolidated Response (ECF No. 87) filed on November 26, 2014.
The Court finds Defendant's Motion to be not well taken and the Court DENIES the same.
Count 1 of the Indictment (ECF No. 1) charges Defendant, Joey L. Jarrell, and four other co-defendants with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. All five defendants are alleged to have willfully and knowingly received, concealed, and retained stolen property with the intent to convert the stolen property to their own use, knowing that the property was stolen. Paragraphs 16(a), 16(b), 16(c), 16(j), 16(k), and 16(1) set forth the specific overt acts allegedly committed by Defendant in furtherance of the illegal conspiracy. Count 2 charges Defendant along with the other co-defendants with Theft of Public Money. Specifically, Defendant and others are alleged to have knowingly and unlawfully converted to their own use monies intended for recipients of the Non-Insured Crop Assistance Program which was administered to the United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency. The Theft of Public Money count specifically lists six dates, banks, checks, and amounts of checks which are the subject of the allegations. Thereafter, there are fourteen Money Laundering counts and Defendant, Joey L. Jarrell, is specifically identified in two of those counts: Count 7 and Count 8. In those two counts it is alleged that Defendant, Joey L. Jarrell, conspired with Co-Defendant, Christopher T. Wolfe, to engage in monetary transactions in criminally derived property. Counts 7 and 8 specifically list the alleged check number and alleged amount of money which form the basis for the two charges. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a) provides:
(a) Relief. If the joinder of offenses or defendants in an indictment, an information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants' trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires.
The general rules regarding severance were adequately explained in the Government's Response. "As a general rule, persons jointly indicted should be tried together because there is almost always common evidence against the joined defendants that allows for the economy of a single trial." United States v. Lopez, 309 F.3d966, 971 (9 th Cir. 2002); accord Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993) ("There us a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). "Severance should be granted 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 guilty or innocense. Lopez, 309 F.3d at 971. "The fact that a defendant may have a better chance at acquittal if his trial were severed does not require the judge to grant his motion; the defendant must show 'substantial,' undue,' or 'compelling' prejudice." United States vs. DeFranco, 30 F.3d 664, 669-70 (6 th Cir. 1994).
Simply put, this case is not that complicated. Defendant, Joey L. Jarrell, is accused of conspiring with four other co-defendants to defraud the government. Jarrell's alleged activity is discrete and separate from the others noted in the alleged overt acts. The Theft of Public Money count relates to the alleged receipt of funds obtained as a result of the conspiracy. The alleged funds received by Defendant Jarrell were, assuming that the allegations can be proved, separate and distinct from other funds allegedly received by other co-defendants. And, finally, the two counts of money laundering refer to the alleged disposition of the funds received. A jury can easily keep the allegations pertaining to Defendant Jarrell separate and apart from the allegations relating to other co-defendants. And, the Court will, of course, provide limiting instructions to the jury requiring them to keep the alleged acts separate from the alleged actions of other co-defendants and to judge each defendant independently.
Because Defendant has failed to convince this Court that there is any substantial or compelling prejudice to Defendant, the Motion for Relief from Prejudicial Joinder is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
Gregory L. Frost
United States District Judge