## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AM ES E RVIN a nd J AY Z AMB RANA, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

____________ A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 00 C R 28

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngmann, Judg e.

____________ A RGUED J AN UA RY 14, 2008

— D ECIDED S EP TE MBE R 2, 2008

____________
Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . A fe deralgr and j ury charg ed J ay Zambr an a an d J ames Erv i n wi thv i o l at i ngnumer o us provi si ons offed er al l aw bypart i ci pati ng i n a drug

tr affic kin g c on sp ira c y, see 18 U
. S. C. §§ 2, 92 2( g) ( 1) , 19 51, 1956 (a)( 1)(A )( i) , ( a)(1) (B)(i ), 1957; 21 U .S.C. §§ 841 (a)( 1), 843(b), 846, 8 5 6 (a)( 1), and by kil ling tw o m en i n furth eran c e of th at co n sp ira c y, see 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 ; 2 1 U. S
. C. § 84 8( e) ( 1) ( A). Be f o r e tr i al, Za m br an a sough t t o s ev erthe2 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 h om icid e c ou n ts from th e d ru g-c on sp ira c y c ou n ts , see F ed. R. Cri m . P. 14 ( a) , to no a va i l

. A j ur y f o und Za m br an a an d Er vin gui l ty o n a l lc o unt s, b as ed l ar g ely o n the e xte ns i ve t es ti m o ny o fthe t wo men’ s co-con spi r at o r s who agr eed to te sti fy a gainst them i n exchange f ori m m un i ty o r r edu ced se nt en ce s. Two y ea r s l at er, Za m br an a an d E rv infile d m ot ion s se ek in g a n ew tria l, see F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 33 ( a) , o n the g r o unds tha t new ev i den ce c ame t o l i g ht showing that ( 1) o ne o fthe co- conspi ra tor s who tes tifie d aga i nst them enga ged i n sev er alact s o fm i sco n du ct w hile deta ined a t t he c ity j aili n H am m ond , Ind iana, before tr i al ; and ( 2) the gov er nm ent withhel d the e vi dence of that m i sco nd uct i n dero gat i on o fBra dyv . M aryl and, 37 3 U
. S. 83 ( 1963 )
. The di str i ct c ourt d eni ed the m oti ons. We a ffi r m.

I. H IS TORY I n S ept embe r 1 99 7, o ffi ce r s wi ththe po l i ce de par tment inL ak e C ou n ty , In d i a n a, ar re st ed A lve st ia M c K elle r in M er ri l l vi l l e, Ind i ana, aftertheyr eco ver ed one ki l ogr am o fc o c ai ne fr om h i s c a r ’ s t r un kdu r i nga t r a ffi c s t o p. M cK ell er qu ickly inform ed the officers th at he had pu rch as ed th e co ca i ne fr o m hi s co us i n, who ha d, i n turn, o b t a i n e d th e d r u g s fr o m Z a mb r a n a . Mc K e l l e r ’ s a dm i ss i o ns s pur r ed a wi de- sc al e i nv es tigat i o n o fZa m br an a by the Drug En f or cem ent A dm i ni str ati on; the I nter nal Revenue S er vi ce; the Bu re a u o fAl c o ho l, Tobac co, Fi re ar m s, and Ex plo si ves; and the Feder alBureau o fInvest i gati o n ( F BI )
. Tha t i nv es ti g at i o n c ul m i na te d i n 2 00 2 wi ththe fi l i ngo fa 4 0- co unti ndi ct m en t ag ains t Zambr an a, Er vin,N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 3

an d se ve n oth er s; Z am b ra n a w as a n am ed d efe n d an t in 29 o fthe c o unt s, a nd Er vin was na m ed i n e l ev en . I n gene ra l, the i nd ict m en t a l l ege d that the ni ne m en co m pr i se d a wi de- r ea ch i ngdr ug - tr affi ck i ngr i ngi n n o r th

w estInd i ana, and that as part ofthe conspi ra cy they obt ained and dis tr ibuted m ar ij uana, her oi n, and coc ai ne; ex to r te d o th er s; l au nde r ed m o ne y t o c o nc ea lthe c o nsp iracy; carried an d used firearm s to furthe r the con sp iracy; and com m itte d num er ous v i ol ent a cts

— i nc l udi ng m urder

— to supp l y the conspir acy w i th m oneyand drugs. As pe r tine nthe r e, the i ndi ct m en t cl ai m ed th atZam brana led th e d ru g-t ra ffick in g rin g, an d th at E rv in

— an o ffi cer wi ththe p oli ce de par tmenti n Ga r y, Indi an a

— acte d as hi s m u sc le. A s par t o fhi s l eader shi p du ti es, the i nd i ctm en t co nt i nue d, Za m br an a woul d l au nd er the r ev enue deri ved fro m the conspi ra cy by vi si ti ng r i verboatcas i nos, ga m b lin g w ith th e d ru g m on ey , an d ex c h an gin g h is “w i nnings ” for“cl ean” cashi er ’ s che cks fro m the casinos. F i na l l y, the i ndi ct m en t al l eg ed th atZa m br an a, Er vin, a nd tw o othe rs co nspir ed to ki l lRaul H urta do and G i lN evar ez as part ofa schem e t o obt ai n fi ve ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. A bout si x m onths bef or e t ria l, Zam bra na fi l ed a m oti on to sev er the i nd i ctm ent’ s ho m i ci de counts fro m the drugconspi ra cy counts. In h is m oti on, Zam bra na as ser ted that he “ wi sh [ ed] t o t es ti fy ” i n h i s o wn d efense a g ains t th e h om i ci de counts, but “[ t] hat co m bi ni ng al lthe counts at one tr i al ” would pre vent hi m fro m doi ng so i fhe c hose to e xe r ci se hi s r i g htno t to t es ti fy as to th e dr ug - co nspi r ac y c o unt s. M o r eo ve r, Z am br an a ar g ue d, t r y i ngthe h om icid e a n d d ru g-c o n sp ira c y c ou n ts to ge th er w ou ld4 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 preve nt hi m fro m re cei vi ng a f ai r tr i al

. Zam bra na si m ult aneousl y fi l ed a noti ce of affi rm ati ve defe nse, in w h i ch he st ate d that he “ m ay re l y o n [ an] al ibidefense” to re sp on d to th e h om icid e c h ar ge s. See F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 12. 1( a)(1)-(2 ). Za m b ra n a c on te n d ed th at h e “ w as g ambl i ngo n the c as i no boat s” dur i ngthe t i m e th atthe govern m en t had all eged that H urt ad o’s a nd N evarez ’s m urders o ccu rred, and expla i ned that he would “r el y o n re cor ds prov i ded bythe [ g] ove rnm en t t o est abl i sh such al ibi

. ” Th e di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d Zam bra na’ s a rgum ents, c on c lu d in g t h at h e n eit h er p ro vid ed “a n y s p ec ific t es tim ony h e i nt e nd [ e d] t o g i v e ” r e g a r di ngthe h o mi c i de counts, norexpl ai ned how a si ngl e t ria l o n al lthe counts i n the i ndi ct m en t woul d pr ev en t th e j ur y fr o m r ea ch i ng a r el i abl e v er dict

. The co u rt ther ef or e deni ed hi s m oti on to sever. The case p ro c eeded to tr i al, and the gov er nm ent pr ese nt ed 57wi tn es se s, i nc l udi ngfi ve o fZa m br an a’ s an d Ervi n’s co - conspi ra tor s w ho descr ibed the i nner- w or ki ngs of th e d ru g-t ra ffick in g rin g. A s re lev a n t to th is a p p ea l, thre e o fZa m bra na’ s a nd Ervin’s co hor ts

— C ar los R ip oll, Denn y A rr eol a, and Tony Cl i nton

— expla i ned how Zamb r a n a a n d E r v i n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n th e c o n s p i r a c y, a nd described Zam bra na’ s a n d E rv in’s r ol es i n the m urder of H urta do and N evar ez. I n a nutshe l l, Ri pol l, Arre ol a, and Clinton t oge ther te st i fi ed th at( 1) Za m br an a appr o ve d o fRi po l l ’s a nd A rr eol a’ s pla n to rob H urta do and Nevare z of th eir cocai ne and m urder them ; ( 2) Zam bra na o rder ed E rv in to c oo rd in at e a n d t o e x ec u te th e h eis t a n d killin gs ; (3) inN os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 5

ac co r dan ce wi ththe pl an, E r vin “ ar r es te d” H ur ta do a nd N ev ar ez dur i ng a sh am tr affi c st o p, to o k th ei r c o ca i ne , a nd d ro ve th e t w o m e n t o th e P u er to R ica n B en efic a C lu b in Gar y ; ( 4) a t th e Ben efi ca Cl ub, Arr eo l a wi tn es se d Er vin a nd an ot h er co -c on sp ira to r, G ab rie l B en av id es , str an gle H urta do and N evar ez; ( 5) Zam bra na o rder ed C lin ton to hel p Ervi n dis pose ofthe bodies ; ( 6) Cl i nton hel ped Erv i n l o a d the b o di e s i nt o the t r un ko fa c a r, f o l l owed hi m i n a no the r c a r a s the y dr o v e t o the s o uth s i de of C hicag o, I ll inois, and w atch ed as Erv in set th e c ar on fi re i n a s ec l ude d a l l ey (whe r e th e Chi ca g o F i r e Depa r tment woul d l at erfi nd i t an d the t wo b o di es it co nt aine d) ; a nd (7) o n th e re tu rn trip to G ar y, E rv i n d es c rib ed in g ra p h ic detai lto Cl i nton ho w he a nd Benavi des stra ngl ed H urta do and N evar ez. Zam brana’ s and Ervin’s at to rn ey s t h or ou gh ly im peached Ripol l ’ s, A rr eol a’ s, and Cl i nton’ s tes ti m ony. Th e d efense ask ed poi nted questi ons to each m an abo ut how he w as or i gi nal l y c harg ed w i th p ar ti ci pati ng in the drug- tr affi cki ng co nspir acy, and f or ced the m en t o ad m i t that they agr eed to te sti fy againstZam bra na and Ervi n onl y a fter th e g over nm en t o ffer ed th em i m m uni tyfr o m the hom i c i de c o un t s o r r e du c e d s e nt e nc e s a s t o the drug conspi ra cy counts. A rr eol a, i n part i cul ar, was questi oned furth er a bou t h is role in H urt ad o’s and N evarez ’s robbery and m urders , a n d w as f or ced to adm i t that he had l i ed to the po l i ce whenthe y first i nt er vi ewe d hi m abo utthe cri m e. The defense al so go t the thr ee m en to a dm i t that they had seve ra lo pp or tuni ti es to com m unica te w i th each o theraftertheyhad agr eed to te sti fy against Zam bra na and Ervi n; A rr eol a s i m i l ar l y a dm i tte d that6 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834

w hi l e he w as housed i n the M etr opol i tan Cor re cti onal Center ( “M CC ”) i n Chicag o du ring tr i al, a guar d sm uggl ed a ce l lphone t o hi m , and that he used the phone to m ake unm oni tor ed t elephone cal l s. The defense al so que st i o ne d Arr eo l a ab o uthi s m em be r sh i p i n the no to r i o us Lat i n Ki ng s st r ee t g an g . And in their con t i nu i nge ff o r tt o i mpe a c h Ar r e o l a, the de fe ns e c a l l e d a ch ar ac te r wi tn es s to t es t i fytha t Arr eo l a was unt r us two r thy a nd ha d a r e pu t a t i o n f o r s t e a l i ng, a nd a l s o c a l l ed an i nm ate atthe M CC w h o c l ai m ed that, wh i l e Arre ol a was det ai n e d th e r e , h e h a d s t a t e d th a tZ a mb r a n a h a d n o th i ng to do w i th the m urders

. A rr eol a’ s cr ed ibi l i ty w as further att acke d i n the defe nse’ s cl osing ar gum ents. B efo r e the j ury retired to deliberate, the d istri ct cou rt car efully in str ucted i t o n how to weigh the evi dence r eg ar di ngthe many c r i m es a l l eg ed

. S pec i fi ca l l y, the c o u r t i n f o r me d th e j u r y th a t “ [ e ] a c h c o u n t o ft he [ i ] nd i ctm ent c harg e[ d] e ach defendant nam ed i n that count with havi ng co m m i tte d a se parat e offense” ; st ate d th at the j ury “m ust g i ve separ ate co nsi derat i on bo th to each cou nt and to ea c h d efend an t”; and ordered the j ury to “c on sid er ea c h co u n t a n d th e e vid en c e r ela tin g t o it separ ate and apartfr om ever y otherco unt. ” The j ury then en te r ed i nt o i ts de libe r at i o ns , a nd s ubs eque nt l y f o und Zam bra na and Ervi n gui l ty on a l lco unts. Bo thZa m br an a an d Er vin re m aine d i n cus to dy awai ting sente nci ng f oro vertwo year s. But then in N ove m ber20 05, the Unite d Sta tes A tto rney ’ s Offi ce s ent a l ett erto Zam bra na’ s a nd Ervin’s attorney s, st ating tha t i t had r ec en tly l ea r ne d that whi l e Arr eo l a was de ta i ne d a t th eN os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 7 H amm o nd Ci tyJ ai lb efo re t r i al, he e ng ag ed i n v ar i o us in c id en ts of m isc on d u c t w ith so m e o f th e jail’s p er so n n el. The l ett erst ate d that, am ong othe r thi ngs, A rr eol a had been perm i tte d to sm ok e ci gar ett es i n th e j ai lga ra ge ar ea unsup er vi sed, to have se xual i nter cour se w i th femal e vi si to r s, to m ak e unmoni to r ed te l eph o ne c al l s, a nd to rec eiv e v isit s a t t h e jail w it h o u t firs t p lac in g h is vi si tor s o n the j ai l ’ s vi si tor s l og. The l ett eral so detai l ed th a t A rre ola h ad a “p er so n al re lat ion sh ip ” w ith a fem ale guar d, and that othe r guar ds had thro w n a b irthday partyf orA rr eol a’ s gir l fri end, had purchased f oo d fo r him , and had all ow e d v isi tors to give him Xa na x. N everthel ess , the l ett erem phasi zed that t h e Un i ted S tat es A tto rney ’ s O ffi ce a nd “the federa li nvest i gat or s invol ved w i th the J ay Zam bra na pro sec u tion and tri al ” were not awar e o fthe misconductb efo r e th e tr i al

. Ins te ad, the l et te r c o nt i nue d, the Offi ce ha d l ea r ne d o fthe mis co nducto nl y a fte r a n investi g at i o n un der ta k enb y the Uni te d S ta te s M arsh al s an d the F BIc o nfi r m ed th atthe m i sc o nduc t ha d, i n f ac t, o cc ur r ed; tha t i nv es ti g at i o n, the let te r st at ed , ha d be en co m p let ed j u st“re c en tly .” Er vin fi l ed a m o ti o n fo r ne w tr i als ho r tly a fte r r ec ei ving the Unite d Sta tes A tto rney ’ s l ett er . Ervin conte nd ed that the ne w l y di sco ver ed evi dence ofA rr eol a’ s m i sco nd uct at th e Ha mmo n d C i t y J a i l wa r r a n t e d a n e w t r i a l s o he coul d u se the i nfo rm ati on t o i m peach A rr eol a. Ervin al so all eged that the gove rn m e n t had been aw are of A rreola’ s mi s c o nd uc tb e f o r e t r i a l, a nd thu s c o nt r a v e ne d Brady by su p p re ss i n g t h e e vid en c e o f th at m alfe as an c e. E rv ind id n ot, ho w ev er , req u es t a n ev id en tia ry h ea rin g on h is m o ti o n, a nd i ns te ad went f o r war d wi ths en te nc i ng . And8 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 athi s se nt en cinghe ar i ng, Er vin a cc ept ed th e g o ve r nm en t’ s r epr es en ta ti o ns r eg ar di ng bo th Arr eo l a’ s m isc o nducta nd i ts l ack of knowl edg e o fthe mis co nduc t, b ut conte nd ed that the r eve l ati ons never theless j usti fi ed a n ew tria l. The di st r i ctc o ur t r ej ec te d Er vin’ s ar g um en ts , c o nc l udi ng th at th e evide nc e of A rreola’ s m iscond uc t d id n ot w arra n t a n ew tria l as n ew ly d isc ov er ed im p ea c h m en t e vidence bec ause, am ong othe r thi ngs, A rr eol a a l re ady had be entho r o ug hl y i m pea ch ed. M o r eo ve r, the c o ur t con tinued, Ervi n f ai l ed to show that the g ove rnm ent s up press ed th e ev i den ce o fArr eo l a’ s m al fea sa nce: “Th er e was no ev ide nc e o ffer ed th ata ny [ fede r al ] a g en cykne w ofthe vi ol ati ons tak i ng pl ace at th e Ham m ond CityJ ai lo r that i t s houl d have be en kno w n by the prose cutor s. ” A nd ev en i fthe gov ernm ent had s up press ed the evi dence of Ar r e o l a ’ s mi s c o nd uc t, the c o ur tc o nt i nu e d, the su ppress i on co uld nothave r un counterto Brady be ca us e th e evi de nce was m er el y c um ula ti ve i m peachm ent e vi dence. The cour t thus denie d Ervi n’s m oti on a nd se ntenced hi m to l i fe i m pri sonm ent. Z am b ra n a also filed a m ot ion for n ew tr i a l , m os tly e c ho i ngthe n e wl y di s c o v e r e d e v i de nc e a nd Brady a r g um ents pu t for w ar d b y Ervi n, and furtheras ser ti ng tha t th e g ov er n m en t w ith h eld ev id en c e s h ow in g t h a t R ip oll, A rreola, and C linton discu ssed their testim ony before tr i alas parto fa gr eat erpl an to fram e Zam bra na f or H ur ta do ’ s an d Nev ar ez ’ s m ur der s. Butunl i k e Er vin, Zamb r a na r e qu e s t e d a n e v i de nt i a r y he a r i ng o n hi s m oti on. The di str i ct c ourtag re ed to Z am bra na’ s r equest,N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 9 continued hi s s entencin g h ear i ng, and deter m i ned that i t would hea r evi dence r ega rdi ng Zam bra na’ s m ot ion at th e resch ed uled sent en cing h earing itself

. A t t h e h ea rin g, Z am b ra n a p re se n te d n in e w itn e s se s in ana tt empt t o s ho w tha t th e g o ve r nm en t k ne w of, a nd supp resse d, A rr eol a’ s m i sco nd uct and hi s abi l i ty to coo rdi na t e h i s t e s t i mon y wi th Ri po l la nd Cl i nt o n. F or i nstance , Zam bra na cal l ed as a witne ss T rini dad Cruz, an inm ate at th e M C C w ho tes tif ie d t ha t before Zam bran a’s and Ervi n’s tr i al, he, A rr eol a, and Cl i nton were tr ansfer re d to ge th er from t h e M C C to th e jail in P or te r C ou n ty , In d ian a, an d that d u r in g the tri p A rreola and Clinton “w ere al lta l king t ogether

. ” Cruz did notst ate , however, that A r r e o l a a n d C lin to n w er e “ ta lkin g” ab ou t t h eir te st im ony. Zam bra na cal l ed Rip oll, A rr eol a, and Clinton t o te st ify a s w ell, b u t e ac h m an d en ied th at th ey h ad co or d inated the i r tes ti m ony, and furtherst ate d that they had not d iscussed thei r tes ti m ony bef or e t ri albey ond the di sc u ss ion s t o w h ich th ey h ad alre ad y a d m itt ed attria l. The dis tr i ct c ourtr ej ecte d Za m bra na’ s a rgum ents w i th th e sam e reason ing tha t it ha d used to den y E rvin’s m oti on: the evi dence ofA rr eol a’ s m i sco nd uct di d not w a r r a nta n e w t r i a lb e c a us e Ar r e o l a h a d a l r e a dybee n thor oughl y i m pea c h ed ; there was nothi ng to sugg estthat the g o v e r nme nt k ne w o f o r s up pr e s s e d the e v i de nce o f A rr eol a’ s m i sco nd uct ; and ev en i fthe gov er nm ent had supp re sse d the e vi dence of m i sco nd uct, the supp re ssi on w ou ld n ot ha ve run afoul of Brady because the evid en ce w as m erely cu m ulative im p each m en t evide nc e. T he cou rt al so deter m i ned that though Zam bra na sho w ed that10 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 Ripol l, A rr eol a, and Clinton had o pp or tuni tie s to dis cuss thei r tes ti m ony bef or e t ri al, he ne ver thel ess f ailed t o poi nt to speci fi c ev i dence that “the go ver nm ent knew that any c on ver sat i on be tw een [ the three m en] to ok pla ce ot h er th a n w h at w as d isc los ed .” T h e c ou rtac c or d in gly d en ied Z am b ra n a’s m ot ion for n ew tria l, an d su b se q u en tly sente nced hi m to l i fe i m pri sonm ent.

II. A NA LYSIS Z am b ra n a a n d E rv inrais e t w o a rg u m en ts on ap p ea l. Fir st, Z am b ra n a arg u es th at th e d ist ric t co u r t inc or re c tly deni ed hi s m o ti o n t o s ev erthe ho m i ci de co unt s i n the i nd i ctm ent fro m the d rug- conspi ra cy counts. N ext, Zam bra na and Ervi n to gether chal l enge the di str i ct court’s d en i alo fthei r m oti ons f ornew tri al

. W e a dd re ss th e s e a r g u me n t s b e l o w.

A
. The d istrict co urt’s d enia l of Z a m bra na ’s m o tio n to sever W e fi rst ad d ress th e d istri ct cou rt’s den ialof Z am bran a’s m o ti o n t o s ev erthe ho m ici de co unt s fr o m the dr ug - co nspi ra cy counts, a deci si on that we r evi ew f or abuse o f d isc re tio n . SeeU nite d State s v. R ice, 5 2 0 F
. 3 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 7( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. UnderF ed. R. Cr i m . P. 8 ( a) , a n indi ct m en t m ay ch ar ge a d efe n d an t w ith tw o o r m or e o ffen se s in s e p a r a t e c o u n t s i fth e o ffe n s e s c h a r g e d “ a r e o fth e s a me or s im il archar acte r, o r ar e ba sed o n the sam e a ct o r tran sa c t ion, or are con ne cted w ith or const itute p arts of a com m on sch em e o r p lan.” Fed

. R. Crim
. P. 14(a), how ever, sta tes thati fthe j oi nd ero fo ffen ses “appear s t o prej ud i ceN os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 11 a defendant, ” then the dist ri ct c ou rt m ay or der s epara te tr i a l s f o r the di ffe r e nto ffe ns e s . T he p o t e nt i a ls o urces o fpr ej udi ce a re m an y . F o r i ns ta nc e, the j o i nde rmight i m per m i ss ibl y c o er ce a de fen dan t “into te st i fy i ngo n a co untupon whi chhe wi sh es t o r emai n s i l en t .” U nited Sta tes v. A rch er, 8 43 F.2d 1019 , 1 022 (7th C ir. 1988); see a lso U nited Sta tes v. Nettles , 47 6 F .3d 5 08 , 51 6- 17 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. Li kewi se , the j o i nde r m ayprej udi ce the defen dan t byc r ea ting a “ spi l l

- ove r effect”

— th at is, th at th e ju r y r e l ies on ev idence pres ented o n one seto fco unts wh en r each i ng a c on c lu sio n on th e o th er se t. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. D ixon , 18 4 F.3 d 64 3, 64 5-4 6 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Fre l and, 14 1 F.3d 122 3, 1226 -27 (7th C ir. 1998). Butwhat ev erthe s o ur ce o fthe pur po r te d pr ej udi ce , the defen dan t be ar s a he av y b ur deno n appea lwhena r g ui ng that the pr ej u d ice w ar ra nted sev er ance. I t i s no t e nough f o r the de fen dan t to s ho w tha t se par at e tr ial s f o r the ch ar g es “ ‘ m ayha ve pr o vi ded h im wi tha b et te r o ppo r tu
ni ty f oracqui tta l

. ’ ” D ixon , 1 84 F. 3d at6 45 ( quo ting U nited Sta tes v. A lexa nd er, 135 F. 3d 470, 477 (7th Cir. 1998)). I nstea d, the defendant m ust e stabl i sh thatthe d en ial of se ve r an ce a ctua l l y pr ej udi ce d hi m b y pr ev en tingthe j ury fro m ar ri vi ng ata re li abl e j ud gm ent a s t o gui l t o r in n oc en c e. Se ei d. ; A lexa nd er, 135 F .3 d a t 4 77 ; U nited St at e s v. Bal zano , 916 F.2d 127 3, 1282 ( 7th Cir. 1990). H er e, Za m br an a a r g ue s th athe was “ unf ai r l y a nd mat e r i a l l y p r ej ud i c e d b y the j o i nd e r o fthe [ h] o mi c i de [ c] ha r g es t o the [ d] r ug - [ co ns pi r ac y ] [ c] ha r g es . ” Zambr an a ex pl ains tha t t he j o i nde r “ pr ev en te d hi m fr o m t es ti fy i ng inh is d efe n se ” a ga in st th e h om icid e a lleg at ion s. Sp ec ifi-12 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834

ca l l y, Za m br an a co nt i nues , b utf o r the j o i nde r o fthe hom i ci de a nd drug- conspi ra cy counts, he woul d have testifi ed tha t on th e night of H urt ad o’s and N evarez ’s m urd ers he w as gam bli ng on riverboats, now he re nearthe tw o m en. B u t because the i nd i ctm ent a l l ege d th athe ha d g ambl ed o n r i ve rbo ats to launde r hi s dr ug m oney, Zam bra na posi ts that, had h e opted to te sti fy a s to h is a libi, h e w ou ld h av e n e c e s sa rily im p lica te d h im se lf on the m oney - l aund eri ng co unts. Zam bra na further co nt en ds th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t was a war e th athe w i shed to te sti fy a s t o hi s a l ibi

. A s he poi nts o ut, he fi l ed a no ti ce o fan a ffi rm ati ve defe nse, i n w h ich h e s tat ed that du ring the peri od ofti m e that the go ver nm ent had al l eg ed th atHurt ado a nd Nev ar ez wer e m ur der ed, he “was g ambl i ngo n the c as i no b o at s. ” T hus , Za m br an a ar gue s, the di st r i ctc o ur t i nc o r r ec tly c o nc l ude d tha t he f ai l ed to s uppo r t hi s m o ti o n t o s ev er b y n ot pr o ducing th e “s pec i fi c te st i m o ny he i nt en d[ ed] t o g i ve” re g ar di ng the ho m i ci de counts. Zam bra na’ s a rgum ent i s m er i tl ess . W hen se eking to seve r charg es on the gr ound that h e w ish es to tes ti fy t o som e ch arges bu t not to oth ers, a d efend an t m us t offer “ ‘a co nv i nc i ngs ho wi ngtha t he ha s bo th i m po r ta ntt es ti m o ny to gi ve concerni ng one co unt and [ the] st ro ng nee d to re fra i n fro m te sti fyi ng o n the othe r. ’ ” A rch er, 8 43 F. 2d at 1022 ( quoti ng B a k er v. U nited Sta tes , 40 1 F. 2 d 9 5 8 , 9 7 7( D. C. C ir. 19 68 )); see also A lexa nd er, 1 35 F.3d at 477. A de fend an t’s “ge nera las ser ti ons” about t he te sti m ony he se eks to offerwill n ot suffi ce; he m ust pro ffer“s peci fi c exam ple s o fthe e xc ul pat o r y t es ti m o ny ” th athe woul d g i ve b ut for th e join d er of th e c ou n ts
. Alexand er, 1 35 F. 3d at 477;N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 13

s e eal s o Bal zano , 91 6 F
. 2d at 1283
. But i n hi s m oti on t o seve r, Zam bra na pro vi ded no such poi nted exam ple s o f th e “e xc ul pat o r y t es ti m ony ” he wi sh ed to pr o vi de; he me r e l y s t a t e d th a th e “ wi s h [ e d ] t o t es ti fy ” i n h i s o wn defen se a g ains t th e ho m i ci de co unt s, b ut“[ t] ha t co m bini ng al lthe counts at one tr i al ” would pre vent hi m fro m doi ng so . A nd the f act that Zam bra n a su b m i tte d a not i ce to pr es en t ana l ibide fen se do es no t m i ti g at e hi s va g ue pr o ffer ed j us ti fi ca ti o n f o r se ve r an ce . N o wher e i n the noti ce di d Zam bra na stat e that he wished t o tes ti fy that he w as gam bli ng w he n H u r tad o and N evarez w ere m urd er ed . In fac t, Z am b ra n a e x p re ss ly st at ed th at h e w ou ld “r ely o n re cor ds p ro vi ded bythe [ g] ove rnm ent” to est ablish h i s a l i b i, an d n oton h is ow n te st im on y. In a ll, Z am bran a p r e s e n ted noth ing m ore tha n “ge ne ral assertio n s” th at, ab se n t t h e s ev er an c e, h e w ou l d n otbe ab le to tes ti fy a s t o the ho m i ci de char ges

— a s how i ng tha t was in su ffic i en t t o s h ow th at se ve ra n c e w as n ec es sa ry . See A lexa nd er, 135 F.3d at47 7; Balzan o , 91 6 F
. 2d at 1283
. Z am bran a also conte nd s tha t sever a nc e w as ne cess ary to avo i d a prej ud i ci al“s pil l

- ove r effect” fro m the drugconspi ra cy counts to the ho m i ci de cou n ts. A ccor ding to Zambr an a, the g o ve r nm ent’s c as e ag ains t hi m o n the hom ic i de co unt s was “ wea k, ” an d the j o i nde r o fthe hom i ci de c ou nts with the drug- conspi ra cy counts caused hi m to “s uffe r a s pil l

- ove r effect ofthe str onge r ev i den ce o fthe [ d] r ug - [ co ns pi r acy] [ c] ha r g es o nt o the m o r e ci r cumst an ti ala nd fl i m sye vi den ce s uppo r ting the [ h]o m i ci de [ c] harg es. ” Thus, Zam bra na ar gues, “[ a] l l o wi ngthe s ame j ury t o he ara l lo fthe e vi den ce a nd dec i de al lo fthe c ha r g es t o g ethe r . . . cr ea te d anunr ea so n-14 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 abl e r i sk that the j ury deci ded the [h ] om i ci de [ c] harg es base d on the str onge r evi dence pres ented i n su p p ort o f th e [d ]ru g-[c on sp ira c y] [c ]h ar ge s.” Bu t Zam bra na i gnor es that th e d i str i ct c ourti nstr ucted the j ury to consi der e ach co unt and i ts re l ate d evi dence separ ate l y. S peci fi cal l y, the cour t instr ucted the j ury to “c on sid er ea c h c o u n t a n d th e e vid en c e re lat in g t o it s e p a r a t e a n d a p a r tfr o m e v e r y o th e r c o u n t
. ” We p r e s u me a j ur y “ ‘ at te nd[ s] cl o se l y [ to ] the par ti cul arl an g ua g e o fthe tr i alc o ur t’ s i ns truct i o ns i n a c r i m inal c as e, ’ ” i nc l udi ng when th e j ur y i s “ ‘ i ns truct ed to c o ns i dere ac h c o unta nd the r el ating ev i dence se parat el y. ’ ” U nit e d Sta tes v. Sto k es , 211 F. 3d 1039 , 1043 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cole m an , 2 2 F. 3 d 1 2 6 , 13 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) , a nd U nited Sta tes v. Li nwood, 1 42 F
. 3d 418, 4 26 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) )
. W e fi nd nothi ng i n th e re cor d that woul d m ake us “ ‘ supp ose that [ the j ury] would dis re gar d’ ” the di str i ct c ourt ’ s instr ucti ons i n thi s case, and Z am bra na p oi nts to no evi dence that re veal s that the j ury i gnor ed the cour t’ s instr ucti ons. Id. ( quoti ng Co l e m an , 2 2 F .3d at13 5); see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Stil lo , 57 F .3d 55 3, 55 7 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Boyki ns , 9 F
. 3d 12 78 , 1 28 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. And be ca us e th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s in st ructi ons provi ded “ ‘ an adequate safeguar d’ ” a gainst “ ‘ evi denti ar y s pil l ove r and cum ula ti on o f evi dence, ’ ” Balzan o , 91 6 F
. 2d at 1282 ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. M o ya -G o m ez , 86 0 F
. 2d 706, 768 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ) , we cannot say th at Z am bran a w as p rej ud iced by the district cou rt’s d en ial of h i s m ot ion to se ve r, see U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 36 3 F
. 3d 63 1, 6 42 ( 7th C ir. 2 004 ) ( st at i ngtha t l i m i ting i nstr ucti on “ adequatel y handl ed any ris k ofprej ud i ce” toN os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 15 d efe n d an t), va ca ted in pa rt by Yo un g v . U nited Sta tes , 54 3 U .S. 11 00 (20 05 ), and Jac ks on v. U ni t e d S t at es , 5 43 U
. S. 11 00 (20 05 ), in lig ht o

f U nited S ta tes v . B o o k er, 543 U
. S. 220 (2005).

B
. The dist ri ct cou rt ’s deni al of Z am brana ’s and E rvin’s m ot i ons f

orne w t r i al N ext, Zam bra na and Erv in b oth chal l enge the di str i ct cour t’ s denia l of thei r m oti ons f or n ew tr i al

— a deci si on th at als o re st ed w ith inth e c ou rt ’s d isc re tio n . See U nited St at e s v. Pal i vos , 4 86 F
. 3d 25 0, 25 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Za m br an a and Ervi n each as se rt thatthe dist ri ct c ourtabuse d that di sc r et i o n b y f ai l i ngt o c o nduc t ane vi den ti ar y he ar i ng ( i n Ervi n’s cas e) and by hol d in g an i nadequ ate evi den ti ar y he ar i ng( i n Za m br an a’ s ca se ) b efo r e den y i ng thei r m oti ons f orn ew t ri al

. A s bo th m en put i t, the dist r i c tc o ur tf a i l e d t o “ i nfo r m i t s di s c r eti on ” wh e n c o nc l ud

i ngtha t th e ev i den ce o fA rr eo l a’ s m i sc o nduc t an d the gov er nm ent’ s a l l ege d supp re ssi on o fthatev i dence di d not j us ti fy a ne w tr i al, a nd th us i ts de ni alo fthe i r mot i o ns s ho ul d b e r e v e r s e d. H ow ev er , Za m b ra n a a n d E rv inh av e w ai v e d a n y c h all enge to the m anner i n w hi ch the distric t co urt w ei ghed th e e v i de nc e i n s up po r to fthe i r mo t i o ns b y f a i l i ngto ob j ec t t o th e c ou rtits e l freg ar d in g t h e w ay in w h ich it c on sid er ed the evi dence. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Has ki ns , 51 1 F.3 d 68 8, 69 3 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); U nited Sta t e s v . C ha rles , 47 6 F.3 d 4 9 2 , 495 -96 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. He r nan dez- Riva s , 3 48 F
. 3d 59 5, 5 98 ( 7th Ci r . 2 003 ) ( “T he gener alr ule withi n the Se venth Ci rcui t i s that i fa party16 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 f ai l s to fi l e ano bj ec ti o n wi ththe d istri ctc o ur t, he o r s he

‘ wai v e s th e r i g h t t o a p p e a l a l l i s s u e s , b o th f a c t u a l a nd l ega l

. ’ ” ( quoti ng Uni t e d S t at e s v . Brown , 79 F. 3d 1499 , 15 03 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ) )
. Even m or e, Ervin d id n ot r equest an ev i de nt i a r y h e a r i ngo n hi s mo t i o n, a nd fur the r a c c e pted th e govern m en t’s represe nt ations regard ing A rre ola’s m i sco nd uct and the go ve rnm ent’ s l ack ofkno w l edge o f the m i sco nd uct. S i m i l ar l y, t h e d i str i ct c ourtgr anted Zam bra na’ s r equest f oran e vi denti ar y hear i ng, and a t that h ea rin g h e w as a llow ed to p re se n t n in e w itn es se s in supp or t o fhi s m oti on. T he di str i ct c ourtneve r att em pted to l i m i t the s c op e o fthe hear i ng, and Zam bra na neve r ob j ec te d to th e m an n er in w h ich th e d is t r i c t c ou rth eld the hea rin g. A nd bec ause both m en f ai l ed to chal l enge th e m anne r i n whi chthe di st rict co ur t co ns i der ed th e evi dence r el ate d to thei r m oti ons f or new tr i al, we w i l lnot ad d re ss th e is su e h er e. Se eHas ki ns , 5 11 F.3d at69 3; C ha rles , 47 6 F .3d at49 5-9 6; He r nan dez- Riva s , 34 8 F
. 3d at 598. B u t e ve n i f Z am b ra n a a n d E rv inh ad p re se rv ed th eir chal l enges as to how the di str i ct c ourt “i nfo rm ed i ts disc re ti on, ” the ar gum ents w oul d have f ai l ed. Because th ei r su bs ta nt i ve ar g um en ts i n su ppo r t o f their m o ti o ns f or n ew tr i alar e m er i tl ess , any pu rpor ted pro cedural d efi cienc y i n th e m an ne r i n w h ich the d istri ct cou rt w eig h ed th e e vid en c e w ou ld h av e b ee n h ar m les s. See U nited States v. Kel ly, 33 7 F
. 3d 897, 90 1- 02 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) (holdin g th at d istri ct court’s fai lure to hol d eviden tiary hear i ng to as cer tain w hetherd efe nd ant br eached pl ea agreementwas ha r m l es s when i t was c l ea r de fen dan t b re ac h ed ag re em en t); s e eal s o Pi nhol s t e rv. Aye rs , 525 F
. 3d 74 2, 7 64 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ho l di ngtha t “ an y er r o r theN os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 17 di st r i ctc o ur t m ayha ve co m m i tt ed” atev i den ti ar y he ar i ng add re ssing i neffecti ve- ass i sta nce- of

- counselcl ai m was ha r m l es s be cause de fen dan t f ai l ed to s ho w he was pr ej ud ice d by co u n se l’s a lleg ed sh or tc om in gs ); W yom i ng v. Liv ing s t on , 4 4 3 F
. 3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 2 5

- 2 6 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( s t a t i ng that dist ric t court ’ s f ai l ure to hol d evi denti ar y hea ring o n iss u e o f rem ov al w as h ar m les s w h er e e vid en c e c lea rly su ppo r te d r emova l: “ I n o urv i ew, t o r ev er se a nd r emand to the di st r i ctc o ur t f o r a n e vi den ti ar y he ar i ng( o n n o th

i ng) , as the S ta te re quests, would be a co l oss alwaste o f tim e and resourc es”). Sp ec ifica lly, th e e vid en c e o f A rre ola ’s m isc on d u c t d id no t j us ti fy a new t r i ala s ne wl y di sc o ve r ed ev i den ce . To obt ai n a ne w tr i albas ed on n ew l y di sco ver ed evi dence, a defen dan t m us t sh o w, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, tha t th e ev i den ce i n que st i o n “ i s m at er i ala nd no t m er ely i m pea ch

i ng o r cum ula ti ve, ” a nd thati t “probabl y would l ead to an acqui tta li n the eve nt o fa new tr i al

. ” United S ta tes v. Ho dg es , 3 15 F
. 3d 79 4, 8 01 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. And y etthe evi dence ofA rr eol a’ s m i sco nd uct i s bo th i m peachi ng and cumul at i ve . The e vi d en ce di d no t sh o w, a s Zambr an a conte nd ed bef or e the di str i ct c ourt, that A rreo l a t oo k advantage o fhi s unm oni tor ed tel ephone ca l l s a nd vi si ts i n j ail to d i scuss w i th Ri pol land Clinton ho w to te sti fy. The mos t tha t the e v i de nc e s ho ws i n tha t r e g a r d i s t hat A rr eol a co ul d have m ade an unm oni tor ed tel ephone cal lto c o nt a c t Ri po l l o r Cl i nt o n s o meh o w, a nd tha t the thr ee m en h a d o p p or tu n itie s t o d isc u ss th eir te st im on y w h ile th eywer e det aine d t o g ethe r, s ucha s when Arr eo l a an d Cli nton w er e bei ng tr ansfer re d fro m the M CC w i th Cruz. Bu t there i s no ev i dence thatsugg est s that the thr ee18 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834

m en actual l y c oo rdi nated the i r tes ti m ony. T o the co ntra ry, at the e vi denti ar y hea ring o n Zam bra na’ s m oti on, Ri p oll, A rr eol a, and Clint on e ach t est i fi ed that they did not disc uss thei r tr i alte sti m ony b ey ond the di scussi ons that th ey h ad alre ad y d es c rib ed attria l. I fa ny th i ng, the n, the e vi den ce o fArr eo l a’ s m i sc o ndu ct woul d have b ee n r el evantto sho w thathe was an untrustwort hy, cr i m i nal

- m i nd e d, a nd m ani pu l ati ve i nd i v i du a lwh o h a d the p r o pe ns i t y f o r de c e pt i o n a nd a wi l l i ng ne ss t o b r ea kthe l aw. Buta t tr i al, Za m br an a an d Ervi n thor oughl y i m p eached Arre ol a a s t o hi s drugtraffi cking p ast, his gang affi li ation, his role in H urt ad o’s an d Nev ar ez ’ s m ur der s, the l i es he pr ev i o us l y t o l d t o the po l i c e i nv e s t i g a t i ng the mur de r s , a nd hi s mi s c o nd uctat the M CC . B oth m en ev en ca l l ed char acte r w i tness es to im p ug n A rreola’ s cred ibi li ty furth er. I t th er efo r e i s unl i k ely tha t m or e ev i den ce de sc r ibing A rreola’ s crim inal natu re

— th ati s, hi s m i sc o nduc t atthe H a m m on d C ity Jail

— coul d sw ay a new j ury to such an ex te n t a s t o lea d it to ac qu it Z am b ra n a o r E rv in . Th is i s par ti cul ar l y s o w hen A rreo la w as not the o nl y witness to tes ti fy that Zam bra na and Ervin h ad hel ped schem e t o rob and to m urder H urta do and N evar ez. See U nited Sta tes v . D eP riest, 6 F
. 3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 1 7 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( r el yi ng o n U nite d State s v. Taglia , 92 2 F. 2d 413, 41 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) , to deter m i ne thatnewly disc ove re d i m peachm ent e vi dence did n o twa r r a ntn e w t r i a lb e c a us e c o nv i c t i o n wa s n ot “p rem ised on th e d em ons t r a b ly d ub ious testim ony of a single w itness ”).N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 19 A nd bec ause the pr oo fo fA rr eol a’ s m i sco nd uct was m erely cu m ulative im p each m en t evide nc e, Z am bran a’s and Ervi n’s Brady c laim s n ec es sa rily fa il. Brady does not ex ten d to “[e] vide nc e tha t im p each es an a lr e a d y thorou gh ly im p ea c h ed w itn es s.” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ko z i n s ki, 16 F.3 d 7 95 , 8 19 (7t h C ir. 19 94 ); see also U nited Sta tes v. B a iley, 51 0 F. 3d 726, 7 36 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Al th o ug h Brady prohibi ts the g ove rnm ent fro m suppress i ng ev i dence that c ou ld be u se d to im p ea c h a gov er n m en t w itn es s, see U nited Sta tes v . B agley, 473 U
. S. 667, 676-77 (1985 ); G igl io v. U nited Sta tes , 405 U .S. 15 0, 15 4 (1 97 2); U nited Sta tes v. D a bney, 49 8 F. 3d 455, 45 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , th e e vi dence m ust be f or
“ ‘m or e t h an cu m u lat ive im p ea c h m en t,’ ” Kozi ns ki, 16 F. 3d at 819 ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. D w eck, 913 F
. 2d 365, 37 1 ( 7th C ir. 19 90 )); see also B a iley, 510 F.3d at73 6; U nited Sta tes v. Se nn , 1 29 F
. 3d 88 6, 8 93 ( 7th C ir
. 1 99 7) ( “Be ca us e th e defe nd ants did i m pea c h [ the witness] o n a num bero f i ssues , the y c an ’ t r ea l l y make a c o nv i nc i nga r g um en t th at ad d itio n al im p ea c h m en t h ad a re as on ab le p r o b a b ili ty of changi ng the outco m e of the tr i al

. ”) . A n d bec ause Arr eo l a was tho r o ug hl y i m pea ch ed at trial , e ve n i fthe go vern m en t had sup p ressed the evid en ce of A rreola’ s m i sc o nduc t atthe Ham m ond Ci tyJ ai l( whi ch, g i ve n the g o ve r nm en t’ s ex pl an at i o ns , we do no t be l i ev e t o b e th e case ) , Zam bran a’s and Ervi n’s Brady c laim s w ou ld st ill fail. See B a iley, 510 F. 3d at 736;Kozi ns ki, 1 6 F
. 3 d a t8 1 9
. We th us c an not fau lt th e d istri ct cou rt for de ny ing Z am bran a’s an d E rv in ’s m ot ion s fo r n ew tria l.20 N os. 05

- 4700 & 06

- 1834 III. C ON CLU SI ON W e A FFIRM the d istri ct cou rt’s den ialof Z am bran a’s m oti on t o seve r, as w el las the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni al s o f Z am b ra n a’s an d E rv in ’s m ot ion s fo r n ew tria l.

9- 2- 08