Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02089/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Margarita Rodriguez Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

> 

I 

• UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Ucited StiJ~ C:01,m Qf Ar,pcals 

Te··,fh Circuit 

MAY 2 - 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff/Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2089 

v. 

MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ BROWN, 

Defendant/Appellant. 

(D.C. No. Cr-89-484-HB-l) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and SPARR, District 

Judge.** 

Margarita Rodriguez Brown appeals her conviction in a jury 

trial for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms 

of marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. §841(a) (1); §84l(b) (1) (B), 

and 18 u.s.c. §2. The only issue on appeal is whether the trial 

court erred when it did not sever the appellant's trial from that 

of her co-defendant, Blanca Elizabeth Michaels. 

Appellant made no request for severance of the trials, hence 

we must determine whether the district court's failure to sua 

sponte sever was plain error. See United States v. Killip, 819 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 

** The Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2089 Document: 010110106442 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 1 
F . 2d 1542, 1547 (10th Cir. 1987); United States v. Barron, 594 F.2d 

1345, 1351 (10th Cir. 1979). Indeed it appears counsel for 

appellant at trial knew that the co-defendant's interest might be 

"somewhat adversarial" but thought there was no conflict. IR. at 

67 (transcript in 90-2090). 

After the government rested, appellant presented no evidence. 

The alleged conflict arose when co-defendant Michaels took the 

stand and admitted all offenses of which she was charged, except 

for the intent to distribute. Michaels implicated appellant as the 

principal person involved in the scheme to transport a large 

quantity of marijuana into the United States. There was also an 

exchange, initiated on cross-examination by appellant's trial 

counsel which could be construed as impugning the integrity and 

ethics of a member of the law firm representing appellant. 

Appellant's contention that her co-defendant's defenses were 

antagonistic and mutually exclusive is properly viewed under the 

standard of United States v. McClure, 734 F. 2d 484 ( 10th cir. 

1984). The court in McClure at 488, reiterated its prior holding 

that mere conflicting defenses do not, standing alone, constitute 

the showing of prejudice necessary for judicial severance (citing 

United States v. Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. 

denied, 451 U.S. 1018 (1981)). The conflict alleged by the 

appellant is not of such a nature as to require separate trials. 

Considering the failure to request severance, the knowledge 

of the potential conflict, the timing of the testimony, and all 

other factors, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2089 Document: 010110106442 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 2 
" 

., discretion in failing to sua sponte order severance of the trials 

when the conflict made its appearance after the government had 

· already rested. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Daniel B. Sparr 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2089 Document: 010110106442 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 3