USA v. Donis-Melgar et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM STEVENSON,
Defendant.
4:21-CR-40007-04-KES
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO SEVER
Defendant, William Stevenson, moves to sever Counts 1 and 2 of the
Second Superseding Indictment. Docket 192. The United States opposes the
motion. Docket 197. For the following reasons, the court denies Stevenson’s
motion to sever.
BACKGROUND
On January 12, 2021, a Grand Jury returned an indictment charging
Stevenson with one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Docket 1. On August 3, 2021, a
grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Stevenson with the
same count as the original indictment but with two fewer co-defendants listed.
Docket 84. Finally, on January 4, 2022, a grand jury returned a second
superseding indictment charging Stevenson with two counts. Docket 164.
Count 1 charged Stevenson with conspiracy to distribute a controlled
substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; Count 2 charged
Stevenson with obstructing justice by retaliating against a witness, victim, or
Case 4:21-cr-40007-KES Document 210 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
informant in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b)(2). Id. Stevenson now moves to
sever Counts 1 and 2 for trial. Docket 192.
DISCUSSION
Stevenson argues that joinder of Counts 1 and 2 is prejudicial. Docket
193 at 5-8. The United States counters that joinder would not be unduly
prejudicial to Stevenson because the evidence regarding Count 1 is interrelated
with the evidence regarding Count 2. Docket 197 at 5-7. Thus, the court must
determine whether severance of Counts 1 and 2 is warranted.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) provides that an indictment may
charge a defendant in separate counts with two more offenses if the offenses
“are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or
transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or
plan.” Rule 8 is interpreted broadly, favoring joinder of offenses. United States
v. Steele, 550 F.3d 693, 702 (8th Cir. 2008). Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 14(a) permits severance of joined counts when joinder “appears to
prejudice a defendant or the government.” Whether it is proper to sever a trial
that may be appropriately joined under Rule 8(a) is left to the court's “sound
discretion” and will be reversed only if the defendant “shows an abuse of
discretion resulting in severe prejudice.” Steele, 550 F.3d at 702.
In United States v. Colhoff, the Eighth Circuit held that the joinder of a
conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance charge with a witness
tampering charge was proper. 833 F.3d 980, 983-84 (8th Cir. 2016). There, the
defendant threatened a witness who testified in a related conspiracy to
Case 4:21-cr-40007-KES Document 210 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
distribute controlled substance trial. Id. at 982-83. The court reasoned that
“joinder of a tampering or obstruction charge with an underlying substantive
offense is proper, because the former is ‘connected to, and interrelated with’
the latter.” Id. at 983 (quoting United States v. Little Dog, 398 F.3d 1032, 1037
(8th Cir. 2005)). It further noted that there was evidentiary overlap between the
conspiracy charge and the witness tampering charge that illustrated the
interrelatedness of the two. Id. Specifically, “[e]vidence of [defendant’s]
attempted tampering would have been admissible in a stand-alone conspiracy
trial as an act in furtherance of the conspiracy to show the existence of an
agreement. [And] [a]t least some evidence of the drug conspiracy would be
admissible to show motive in a stand-alone prosecution for attempting to
intimidate [the witness].” Id. (internal citation omitted). Thus, because evidence
relating to both charges would have been admissible in standalone trials for
either of them, the court held that joinder was proper and did not prejudice
defendant.
Here, the court finds that Colhoff’s reasoning dictates that Counts 1 and
2 be joined. Stevenson allegedly retaliated against an alleged co-conspirator
because of the co-conspirator’s cooperation with law enforcement. This
retaliation is the basis for Count 2. The co-conspirator’s cooperation resulted in
Stevenson’s indictment on Count 1. Thus, Counts 1 and 2 are interrelated
because the retaliation charge is connected to the underlying substantive
conspiracy charge. Further, there is evidentiary overlap between the two counts
that supports their relatedness. Evidence of Stevenson’s alleged retaliation
Case 4:21-cr-40007-KES Document 210 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
would be admissible in a standalone conspiracy to distribute a controlled
substance trial as an act in furtherance of the conspiracy and to prove the
existence of an agreement. See id. Likewise, evidence of the conspiracy would
be admissible in a standalone retaliation trial to show that Stevenson retaliated
against his co-conspirator for being a witness in the conspiracy trial, which is
an element the government would have to prove. “Where evidence that a
defendant had committed one crime would be probative and thus admissible at
the defendant’s separate trial for another crime, the defendant does not suffer
any actual prejudice if the two crimes are tried together.” United States v.
Rodgers, 732 F.2d 625, 630 (8th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Dennis,
625 F.2d 782, 802 (8th Cir. 1980)). Thus, the court finds that the joinder of
Counts 1 and 2 is proper and that Stevenson will not suffer prejudice as a
result of joinder.
CONCLUSION
Joinder of Counts 1 and 2 is proper because they are interrelated.
Severance of the counts is improper because Stevenson will not suffer
prejudice. Thus, it is
ORDERED that Stevenson’s motion to sever (Docket 192) is denied.
Dated April 6, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:21-cr-40007-KES Document 210 Filed 04/06/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>