USA v. Phu et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-24-146-R
)
MATTHEW ALAN STACY, et al., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Stacy’s Motion to Sever [Doc. No. 339] seeking to
sever his trial from that of his co-defendant, Chanh Iu Phu (“Shawn Phu”) pursuant to Fed.
R. Crim P. 8(a) or, in the alternative, Fed R. Crim. P. 14. Defendant Shawn Phu filed a
Motion for Joinder [Doc. No. 348] stating that he joins and adopts Mr. Stacy’s arguments.
The United States filed a Response [Doc. No. 344] stating that it has no objection to Mr.
Stacy’s request.
Mr. Stacy is charged in an Indictment with one count of conspiring with Chong Iu
Phu (“Alex Phu”) to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute marijuana,
and one count of maintaining a drug involved premises. Mr. Shawn Phu is charged in a
separate count with conspiring with Alex Phu to manufacture, distribute, or possess with
intent to distribute marijuana and one count of possession with intent to distribute
marijuana. Mr. Alex Phu is also charged as a defendant but has entered a plea of guilty and
waived his right to a trial. Mr. Stacy contends that the Indictment charges two separate
conspiracies, one involving Mr. Stacy and one involving Mr. Shawn Phu, and fails to draw
Case 5:24-cr-00146-R Document 363 Filed 09/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
any meaningful connection between the two. He therefore argues that joinder under Rule
8(b) is not appropriate, particularly now that Mr. Alex Phu has entered a plea of guilty.
Rule 8(b) provides that
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 more counts together or separately. All
defendants need not be charged in each count.
The Rule “encourage[s] joinder of defendants” and is construed “‘to allow liberal joinder
to enhance the efficiency of the judicial system.’” United States v. Caldwell, 560 F.3d 1202,
1212 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th
Cir.1997). The Tenth Circuit has stated that “‘the test for a proper joinder is a common
thread to each of the defendants,’ which ‘may be established by common evidence as to
various counts.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Rogers, 921 F.2d 975, 984 (10th Cir.1990)._
(brackets omitted). Under this standard, joinder is permissible if the indictment alleges “an
ongoing series of interconnected illegal transactions amounting to the operation of a
criminal enterprise” even if “some defendants were not involved in each aspect of the
overall enterprise.” United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 668 (10th Cir. 1989). However,
“if joinder is permissible under Rule 8, the trial court may nevertheless grant severance
under Fed.R.Crim.P. 14 if joinder would prejudice one of the parties.” United States v.
Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 667 (10th Cir. 1989).
Generally, “[t]here is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants
who are indicted together.” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993). But given
that both Defendants request a severance and the United States has no objection, the Court
Case 5:24-cr-00146-R Document 363 Filed 09/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
is not inclined to deny the request. The Court is satisfied that, in this case, the presumptive
benefits to judicial economy and convenience from a joint trial should give way to
Defendants’ request, which the United States does not oppose.
Accordingly, Defendant Stacy’s Motion to Sever [Doc. No. 339] is GRANTED. At
this time, the separate trials for Mr. Stacy and Mr. Phu remain set on the November trial
docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2026.
Case 5:24-cr-00146-R Document 363 Filed 09/29/26 Page 3 of 3