IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
: Cr. No. xx-319(NHJ)
v. :
:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, :
:
Defendant. :
MOTION TO SEVER DEFENDANTS
Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, through counsel, respectfully
moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 14, to sever his trial from that of co-defendants * and *, and as grounds, shows the court:
1. Mr. * is charged in a seven-count indictment with conspiracy to commit murder and other related offenses. Also charged in the indictment are co-defendants * and *..
2. The government has notified counsel for defendants in discovery that at the trial of this case, the government will attempt to introduce into evidence certain statements made by * which inculpate xxx and xxx *.
3. If the government is allowed to use the statements against Mr. xxx, xxxx *'s trial must be severed from Mr. xxx trial to protect xxx *'s Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). The only way that the government can use the out-of-court statements of a non-testifying co-defendant at a joint trial is to redact the statements to eliminate any reference to the other defendants. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987). Given the nature of Mr. Judd's statements, such redaction is unlikely.
4. xxx * is also entitled to a severance from co-defendant xxx *, because the evidence against xxx * is de minimis when compared to the evidence against xxx *. xxx * is alleged to have shot the decedent Leroy ******** several times, to prevent Mr. ******** from testifying against his brother, James *, in a trial in Maryland. The only evidence which the government proffers against xxx * in the indictment is that xxx * learned on March 20, 1996 that ******** was to be a witness against James *, that sometime during the next five days he told other people that he was looking for ********. xxx * was not present when ******** was killed. There is no evidence that xxx * took any action to bring about the killing of ********.
5. When the evidence against one co-defendant is de minimis compared to evidence against other defendants, a severance is warranted. United States v. Mardian, 546 F.2d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621 (1980).
For these reasons, and any others that may appear upon a hearing on this Motion, defendant xxx * respectfully moves this court to sever his trial from that of the co-defendants and permit him to proceed to a separate trial.
Respectfully submitted,
A.J. KRAMER
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
________________________
Reita Pendry
David Howard
Assistant Federal Defenders
Counsel for xxx *
Assistant Federal Defender
625 Indiana Avenue, N.W. #550
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202)208-7500