FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 89 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr– 00 24 1- W SD-ECS- 4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MOUSSA BARADJI, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 9, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Mo us saBara dji ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on for fel on y co pyrig htin fri ng em en t, i n vi ol at io n o f 17 U.S.C. § 5 06 (a), 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 31 9( a), (b )(1 ) an d (2 ). Bara dji arg ue s t ha t h is tri al was fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r be cau se he was t rie d jo in tl y with se ve ral co de fen dant s fo r a co ns pi racy char ge th atwas d is m is se d a t the co nc lu si on of th e ev id en ce, p ur su an t t o aFed .R.Cri m .P. 29 m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Bec au se Bara dji di d n otarg ue fora se ve ran ce b el ow, we re vi ew on ly for pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Olan o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 1- 32 , 11 3 S .Ct. 1 77 0, 1 77 6, 12 3 L.Ed .2d50 8 (1 99 3) . Und er p la in erro r rev ie w, Barad ji m us t s ho w (1) anerro r th at(2) is pl ai n, (3 ) affe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s, an d (4 ) se rio us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Id . at 7 32 , 11 3 S .Ct. at 17 76 . Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 8 (b ) pr ov id es th atm ul ti pl e d efen da nt s m ay be ch arg edto ge th er i n t he same ind ic tm en t i f th ey are al le ge d t o h av e pa rti ci pa te d i n t he same act o r tr an sa ct io n, o r in th e sa m e se rie s o f act s o r tra ns act io ns co ns ti tu ti ng anoff en se . Fed .R.Cri m .P. 8(b ). Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 1 4( a) p ro vi de s t ha t, i f itap pe ars th ata de fen dantis pre jud ic ed by a j oi nd er o f of

fen se s o r of

de fen da nt s i n a n i nd ic tm en t o r a co ns ol id at io n fo r tri al , “ th e co urt m ay

ord er s ep arat e tr ia ls of c ou nt s, s ev er the de fen da nt s’ tri al s, o r

2pr ov id e wha te ve r ot he r rel ie f jus ti ce re qu ire s.” Fe d.R .Cri m .P. 14 (a).

“ Jo in t tria ls pl ay

a vi ta l ro le in th e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em an d s erv e im po rta ntin te res ts : the y

reduc e th e ri skof i nc on si st en t v erd ic ts an d t he un fai rn es s in he ren t i n s eri al tri al s, l ig ht enth e b ur de n o n v ic ti m s an d wi tn es se s, i nc reas e effi ci en cy , andco ns erv e sc arce jud ic ia l re so ur ces .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z, 64 9 F.3 d 1 22 2, 1 23 3- 34 (11 thCir . 20 11 ); Za fi ro v. Uni te d Sta tes , 50 6 U.S. 5 34 , 53 7, 11 3 S .Ct. 9 33 , 93 7, 1 22 L.Ed.2d31 7 (1 99 3) . In thi s ci rcu it , th e ru le is th at

“ de fen da nt s wh o are i nd ic te d t og ethe r are u su al ly trie d t og ethe r.” Lo pe z , 64 9 F.3 d. at12 34 . “ Thi s ru le is ev enm or e p ro no un cedin co ns pi racy case s. . .” Id. To jus ti fy a se ve ran ce, the de fen da ntbe ars th e “ he av y bu rd enof de m on st rat in g t ha t co m

pe ll in g p reju di ce wo ul d re su ltfro m a joi nttri al .” Id. “ To sh ow co m

pe ll in g p reju di ce, a d efen da ntm us t es tabl is h t ha t a jo in t tria l wo ul d actua ll y pre jud ic e th e d efen da ntan d tha t a s ev eran ce i s t he on ly pro pe r rem edy for th atpre jud ic e—ju ry

in st ru ct io ns or s om e o th er re m edy sh ort o f se ve ran ce wi ll no t work.” Id. “ Bec au se li m it in g i ns tru ct io ns us ua ll y wil l cu re an y

pre jud ic e res ul ti ng fro m

a joi nttri al , . . . th e Supr em e Co urt h as in di cat edth atsev eran ces ne edbe gra nt edon ly if th ere i s a s eri ou s ri skth ata joi nttri al wou ldeit he r ‘com pr om is e a s pe ci fic tri al rig htof o ne of t he de fen da nt s’ or ‘pre ve ntth e jury fro m m ak in g arel iabl e jud gm en t ab ou t g ui ltor i nn oc en ce’ eve n i f li m it in g 3in st ru ct io ns are g iv en .” Id. at 1 23 4- 35 (qu ot in g Za fi ro , 50 6 U.S. at53 9, 1 13 S.Ct . at93 8) .

“ Dis m is sa l o f so m e co un ts ch arg edinth e in di ct m en t d oe s n otau to m at ic al ly warra ntrev ers al of c on vi ct io ns reac he d o n re m ai ni ng co un ts .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pro sp er i , 20 1 F .3d13 35 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). “ Rat he r, a rev ie win g c ou rt m us t co ns id er wh ethe r th e co nv ic ti on s wer e th e res ul t o f pr ejud ic ia l s pi ll ov er: th atis , was th ere e vi de nc e (1 ) th atwou ldno t h av e b een adm it te d b utfor th e d is m is se d ch arg es an d (2 ) th atwas i m pr op erl y rel ie d o n b y

th e jury in t he ir c on si de rat io n o f th e rem ai ni ng ch arg es .” Id. In Pro sp er i , as t o t he fir stpro ng , we no te d t ha t the ch al le ng edev id en ce wo ul d h av e b een ot he rwis e ad m is si bl e, un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ), as ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s in te nt . Pro sp er i , 20 1 F .3dat 13 45 -4 6. Ru le 40 4( b) pro vi de s t ha t ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o f ot he r cri m es or b adact s is in adm is si bl e fo r th e p ur po se of p ro vi ng th e d efen dant ’s cha ract er, b utsu ch ev id en ce m ay

be adm it te d fo r othe r pu rp os es su ch as f orpro vi ng m ot iv e, in te nt , or ab se nc e o f m is ta ke or a cci de nt . Fed .R.Evi d. 4 04 (b )(1 ) an d (2 ). As t o t he sec on d p ro ng , we con si de r: ( 1) whethe r th e jury m et ic ul ou sl y si fte d t he ev id en ce ad m it te d fo r al l co un ts , whi chcanbe si gn al edby a di sc riminat in g a cqui tt al ; (2 ) whe th er the co nt es te d e vi de nc e was “ in fla m m at ory in na tu re; ” (3 ) whe th er the ev id en ce s ig ni fic an tl y alt eredth e d efen da nt ’s tri al 4st rat eg y ; an d (4 ) th e st ren gt h o f th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t the de fen da ntas t o the

rem ai ni ng co un ts . Pro se

pe ri , 20 1 F .3dat 1 34 6. Fi na ll y , eve n i n t he cas e o f pr ejud ic ia l s pi ll ov er, “ a co urt’s caut io na ry in stru ct io ns wil l o rd in ari ly mit ig at e th e po te nt ia l s pi ll ov er ef

fectof e vi de nc e o f a co de fen da nt ’s gu il t.” Lo pe z , 64 9 F .3dat 12 35 . In Sc ha

ff er , th e Supr em e Co urt ad dr es se d t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r a se ve ran ce s ho ul d h av e b een ord eredun de r Ru le 14 (a), wh ere t he in it ia l jo in de r was pro pe r un de r Ru le 8(b ), bu t the co ns pi racy cou ntwas d is m is se d b efo re the cas e was subm it te d t o t he jury. Sc ha ff er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 36 2 U.S. 5 11 , 51 4, 8 0 S.Ct . 94 5, 9 47 , 4 L.Ed.2 d 9 21 (19 60 ). The C ou rt d ecl in edto “ fas hi on a ha rd -an d- fas t fo rm

ul a th at , when a co ns pi racy cou ntfai ls , join de r is erro r as a m at te r of law.” Id. at 5 16 , 80 S.Ct . at 9 48 . Ins te ad , th e Co urt em ph as iz edth at , in su ch a si tu at io n, the tri al jud ge ha s a c on ti nu in g dut y to granta se ve ran ce i f pr ejud ic e ap pe ars . Id. In c on cl ud in g t ha t a s ev eran ce was no t re qu ire d, the Co urt no te d t ha t the de fen da nt s fa il edto sh ow an y pre jud ic e, an d “ ev enfai le d t o re qu es t a n ew tr ia l,” r el y in g e nt ire ly on t he ir m ot io ns foracqui tt al . Id. The Co urt al so no te d t ha t the tri al jud ge in stru ct edth e jury as to th e ev id en ce tha t s ho ul d b e co ns id eredas t o e ach de fen da nt ’s gu il t o n t he subs ta nt iv e ch arg es . Id. Fi na ll y , inord er t o c on vi cta de fen da ntof f el on y co pyrig htin fri ng em en t, 5th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve th at , du rin g a18 0- da y pe rio d, the de fen da nt rep ro du cedor d is tri bu te d 1 or m or e co pi es of 1 0 o r m or e co pyrig ht edwork s wi th a ret ai l v al ue of m or e th an$2 ,50 0. 1 7 U.S.C. § 50 6( a); 18 U.S.C. § 2 31 9( a) an d (b ). If the se requi rem en ts are m et , th e d efen da ntis subjec te d t o afiv e-year m ax im um se nt en ce. § 23 19 (b )(1 ). Oth erwi se , th e m ax im um pe na lt y is on e-year im pr is on m en t. § 23 19 (b )(3 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err infai li ng to su a s po nt e sev er Ba rad

ji’s tri al fro m th atof h is co de fen dant s b ecau se he fai le d t o s ho w com pe ll in g p reju di ce res ul ti ng fro m

th e joi nttri al . Spe ci fic al ly, he fai le d t o s ho w th atev id en ce re la te d to th e co ns pi racy char ge crea te d apre jud ic ia l s pi ll ov er ef

fecton hi s co nv ic ti on for subs ta nt iv e co pyrig htin fri ng em en t b ecau se th e ch al le ng edev id en ce wo ul d l ik el y ha ve be enadm is si bl e ata se ve redtri al un de r Ru le 40 4( b) as e vi de nc e o f hi s i nt en t an d abs en ce o f m is ta ke . Becau se bl an k C Ds an d DVDs canbe purch as edforleg al pu rp os es , th e ev id en ce o f th e Feb ru ary 20 09 sei zu re co ul d h av e b een pro pe rly adm it te d t o s ho w th atBara dji in te nd edto pu rch as e th os e raw m at eri al s fo r il le ga l us e dur in g t he rel ev an t t im e p eri odforhi s s ub st an ti ve ch arg e. Inan y ev en t, Bara dji fai le d t o s ho w th atth e jury im pr op erl y rel ie d o n t ha t ev id en ce. The co urt in st ru ct edth e jury to c on si de r th e ev id en ce p ert ai ni ng to each de fen da nt in di vi du al ly andth e fac t tha t the jury subs eque nt ly acqu it te d o ne de fen da nt 6de m on st rat es th atth e jury fol lo wedth atin st ru ct io n. Fi na ll y , th e ev id en ce fr om

co -d efen da ntAhn an d B arad ji’s adm is si on s t o Ag en t M cGro aty was s tro ng en ou gh to supp ort the co nv ic ti onan d c ou ns el ag ai ns t a f in di ng of p reju di ce. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

7