U.S. v. Sanchez

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SHIRLEY MARIE SANCHEZ and JOSE…

Court: United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

Date published: Feb 8, 2003

No. 2:02CR0062 (D. Utah Feb. 8, 2003)

Opinion

No. 2:02CR0062

February 8, 2003

ORDER

DEE V. BENSON, United States District Judge

Before the Court is defendant Luis Nevarez's Motion to Sever Trial. Shirley Marie Sanchez is charged with five counts of aiding and abetting a conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and one count of using a communication facility in a drug trafficking crime, Defendant Jose Luis Nevarez is charged with one count of aiding and abetting a conspiracy. On December 30, 2002, this Court ruled that certain co-conspirator's statements were admissible evidence against Ms. Sanchez. The Court also ruled that those same statements were not admissible against Mr. Nevarez. Defendant Nevarez now requests this Court to sever the defendant's trial which is currently scheduled to be held jointly. The United States does not object to the severance of the trial.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a) states:

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 Court finds that the joinder of defendants' trial in this case would likely prejudice Mr. Nevarez. The defendant's were involved in similar offenses. See United States v. Muniz, 1 F.3d 1018, 1023 (10th Cir. 1993) (finding that where the offenses are based upon the "same or similar character, the prejudice to the defendant is more likely."). Furthermore, the witnesses testifying against each defendant will likely be substantially different in light of this Court's December 30 ruling. Most importantly, the Court finds that a joint trial would consist of a substantial amount of information that is inadmissible against Mr. Nevarez. Thus, the jury would be required to analyze the evidence in light of a large number of limiting instructions. The Court believes that such a situation poses the risk of "preventing the jury from making a reliable judgment about [the] guilt or innocence" of Mr. Nevarez. Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993).

Finding good cause, therefore, the Court GRANTS defendant Nevarez's Motion to Sever Trial. [89-1]. IT IS SO ORDERED.