Opinion
S1 99 Cr. 395 (TPG).
December 20, 2000.
OPINION
Defendant Shahzad Ahmed has filed a motion requesting (1) to have his trial severed from that of Maroof Ahmed and Beth Cherry, (2) to have his post-arrest statement suppressed, and (3) to obtain discovery from the Government.
Since the filing of the motion, Beth Cherry has pleaded guilty, thus making moot the severance request as to her. Also, the request for suppression of the post-arrest statement has been withdrawn. Finally, the Government has agreed to produce the discovery items requested.
This leaves for decision the application to have the moving defendant's trial severed from that of Maroof Ahmed.
On the latter issue, the determining factor is that this is a standard case where the Government claims a conspiracy and seeks to try the conspirators together. A joint trial generally is the proper way to proceed. That is the case here. There is no reason why the rights of each defendant cannot be protected. An issue has been raised about a confession of Maroof Ahmed, the introduction of which might violate the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). However, the Government commits to handling the confession in a fashion which will not violate the rules announced in the controlling Supreme Court cases. See also Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998). Under these circumstances, the possible introduction of the confession, or parts thereof, is not a reason for severance.
Conclusion
Shahzad Ahmed's motion to suppress his post-arrest statement is withdrawn. His applications for severance as to Beth Cherry and for production of discovery materials are denied as moot. His application to have his trial severed from that of Maroof Ahmed is denied because no sufficient grounds exist for severance.
SO ORDERED.