USA v. Medina et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:21-cr-00062-JJM-PAS Document27_ Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)

v. ‘ 1:21-cr-00062-3-JJM-PAS
RONALD HALL, )
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Ronald Hall’s Motion for Relief from Prejudicial
Joinder, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 14. ECF No, 21, Mr. Hall argues that there is
a serious risk of “spillover” prejudice, where the potential guilt of one of his
codefendants would influence the jury’s perception of his guilt. Jd. The government
responds that, because this is a conspiracy case, the codefendants should be tried
together, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 8b). ECF No. 25.

According to Rule &(b):

The indictment or information may charge 2 or more defendants if they

are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the

same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.

The defendants may be charged in one or move counts together or

separately. All defendants need not be charged in each count.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b). Courts of this Circuit have previously held that a conspiracy
constitutes a “sufficient connecting link between co-defendants” to permit joinder of
defendants under Rule 8(b). See, e.g., United States v. Luna, 585 F.2d 1, 4 (st Cir.

1978). This Circuit has also held that codefendants may be joined when there is a

“common ‘mucilage’ or activity between an objecting defendant and the other

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:21-cr-00062-JJM-PAS Document 27 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>
indictees, such as participation in a common drug distribution scheme.” United
States v. Azor, 881 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2018). Furthermore, “[jloinder is proper,
however, even when the objecting defendant is only connected to one part of that
scheme.” Jd. Because the Mr. Hall is alleged to have participated in a drug
conspiracy, the Court finds that he was properly joined to with his codefendants.!
The question then becomes whether the Court should sever the proper joinder
under Rule 14(a). This Rule holds: “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.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
14(a). As both parties allude to, the rule in this Circuit is that “a district court should
grant a severance under Rule 14 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.” United States v. Flores-Rivera,
56 F.3d 319, 325 (1st Cir. 1995) Gnternal quotations omitted).
The Court is aware of the risk that spillover prejudice presents. Indeed, the

risk of spillover alone could meet the high bar that Rule 14 presents, thereby
permitting a court to sever codefendants. See, e.g., Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S.

534, 539 (1993). However, the tenability of spillover prejudice here is questionable

! Under Azor, one part of the conspiracy may have been the offense that the
police apprehended him. Given the close proximity of all three codefendants at the
time of arrest, 1t is reasonable to allege that the June 8 offense was at least “one part
of that scheme.” Nonetheless, the Court does not make any conclusions now whether
this event was sufficient for determining that there was a conspiracy on June 8.

Case 1:21-cr-00062-JJM-PAS Document 27 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>
at best. While Mr. Hall recognizes the seriousness of the charges against his
codefendants, he does not discuss why the jury would improperly infer his
involvement in potentially unrelated offenses. The trend in this Circuit disfavors
severance in conspiracy cases unless the risk of spillover prejudice is, for example, “so
pervasive that miscarriage of justice looms.” See, e.g., United States v. Weadick, No.
18-1899, 2021 WL 4350064 at *8 (1st Cir. 2021).

Moreover, it is not clear that a limiting instruction would inhibit the jury from
making a proper determination. As the First Circuit notes, “[t]he [trial] court
carefully controlled the presentation of the proof, making the jury keenly aware that
certain evidence was limited to particular defendants, and that, in all events, the
evidence had to be considered separately against each defendant.” United States v.
Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 616 (1st Cir. 1994). There is no reason to believe that this Court
would deviate from a similarly “exemplary handling of the situation.” See id.

Because the Court finds that the risk of spillover is not “so pervasive that
miscarriage of justice looms,” Weadick, 2021 WL 4350064 at *8, the Court DENIES

Mr. Hall’s Motion for Relief from Prejudicial Joinder, ECF No. 21.

Wes

nal

IT IS 6O OR

~_/F1K
John J, McComnell, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

November 4, 2021