## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 33 05

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

. Hil la rd Ledo n Gar ret t, J r., *

*
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: May 13 , 20 11
Fi le d: Aug us t 4 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MURP HY an d COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , an d ERICKSON, Dis t ric t 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ _

ERICKSON, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Hil la rd Led on Garre tt

, Jr

. of two co un ts of be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm an d am m un it io n in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Garre tt

ap pe al s, arg ui ng : (1 ) in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or ts th e co nv ic ti on s; (2 ) th e di st ric t

The Hon or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.co ur t erre d in de nyi n g h i s mo t i on fo r a m is tri al ; an d (3 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in 2

de nyin g h is m ot io n t o s ev er t he two co un ts . W e aff irm.

I.

On th e m or ni ng of Ju ly 28

, 20 08

, Offi cers Eric Mo or m an an d Ro dr ig o San ti zo

st op pe d a si lv er Po nt ia c Gran d Pri x be cau se th e ve hi cl e’s win do ws were ex ces si ve ly

ti nt ed

. The dr iv er, Garre tt , a nd th e fro nt sea t p as se ng er, Sar a Ri ve ro , were t he so le

oc cu pa nt s of th e ve hi cl e. Garre tt pr ov id ed Offi cer Mo or m an an Ill in oi s id en ti fic at io n

card be ari ng th e na m e “ Hil la rd Garre tt .” The id en ti fic at io n card was no t a dr iv er’s

li cen se

. Afte r Offi cer Mo or m an req ue st ed th at Garre tt st ep ou t of th e ve hi cl e, Garre tt

le d t he off

ic ers on a hi gh sp eed ch as e o n I- 23 5 t hr ou gh Des M oi ne s, Io wa.

Dur in g th e ch as e, Lato nya Cal de ro n wit ne ss ed a si lv er car wit h ti nt ed win do ws

weav in g in an d ou t of tra ffi c. Cal de ro n ob se rv ed th e si lv er car’s win do w co m e do wn

an d an ob ject tra ve l ou t of th e win do w. Sh e watc he d th e it em hi t th e m ed ia n area an d

th en la nd in fro nt of he r car . Upo n n ot ic in g t ha t i t was a gu n, Ca ld ero n p ul le d ov er

an d c a l l e d 9 1 1

. Two ot he r dr iv ers al so sa w th e gu n, ki ck ed it to th e si de of th e

in te rs ta te

, an d wait ed fo r po li ce of fic ers to arri ve

. The ha nd gu n, a 9m m Ru ge r, was

lo ad ed

.

Offi cers ev en tu al ly st op pe d th e car an d arre st ed Garre tt

. On Aug us t 20

, 20 08

,

a gr an d jury in di ct ed Garre tt fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm fo r co nd uc t

oc cu rri ng on Ju ly 28, 2 00 8. Garr et t was no t i m m ed ia te ly arres te d fo r th is ch arg e.

On Sep te m

be r 17

, 20 09

, of

fic ers ex ecu t ed a se arch warra nt at 18 46 E. Park

Ave nu e in Des Mo in es , Io wa. The y fo un d Pat ric ia W at so n, Garre t t ’s gi rlf rie nd

,

The Hon or ab le Haro ld D. Viet or , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 2

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-W at so n’s y ou ng ch il d, an d Garre tt in th e up st ai rs so ut hwe st be dr oo m

. The own er of

th e ho m e an d he r y ou ng ch il d were fo un d i n t he up st ai rs no rth wes t be dr oo m

. In a

cl os et in th e so ut hwe st be dr oo m , o f f ic ers di sc ov ered a lo ad ed .40 cal ib er Sm it h &

W es so n ha nd gu n an d a m ag azi ne wit h se ve n ro un ds

. The gu n, wrap pe d in a tri pl e XL

red sh irt

, ha d be en pl aced in a sm al l sa fe in si de of a di ap er ba g. Offi cers al so fo un d

Garre tt ’s Ill in oi s id en ti fic at io n card

, m on ey , an d a fo od st am p card in th e be dr oo m

. Garre tt in it ia ll y sa id th e gu n m ig ht be l o n g t o W at so n, bu t aft er as ki ng wha t wou ld

ha pp en to W at so n, Gar ret t ad m it te d t ha t t he gu n was hi s.

On Octo be r 21

, 20 09

, th e gr an d jury ret ur ne d a su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t ad di ng

a se co nd co un t fo r th e ha nd gu n fo un d du rin g th e se arch of th e Des Mo in es res id en ce.

Garre tt m ov ed to sev er t he co un ts , and th e d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n.

The di st ric t co ur

t gr an te d Garre tt ’s m ot io n in li m in e to pr ecl ud e wit ne ss es fro m

te st ifyin g ab ou t dr ug s. Dur in g tri al

, Garre tt twi ce m ov ed fo r a m is tri al

, co m pl ai ni ng

th at se ve ral wit ne ss es refe ren ced dr ug s or dr ug in ve st ig a t io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed th e m ot io ns

. Befo re a n d aft er th e jury’ s gu il ty ve rd ic t, Garre tt m ov ed fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

. The di st ric t c o u r t d en ie d th e m ot io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced Garre tt to 11 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t on each co un t to be se r v e d

co nc ur ren tl y . Garret t ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s.

II. Su ffi ci en cy

of t he Evi de nc e

Garre tt fir st ch a l l e n g e s t he su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s

gu il ty ve rd ic t of bo th co un ts

. W e rev ie w a su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce cl ai m de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d acce pt in g al l

reas o n a b l e i n f

eren ces su pp or ti ng th e ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es v. Ch ap man , 35 6 F.3 d

84 3, 84 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). W e wil l rev ers e th e ve rd ic t on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d

ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d St at es v. Eva ns , 43 1 F .3d 34 2, 3 45 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

-3

-To co nv ic t Gar r e t t un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), th e go ve rn m en t ne ed ed to

pr ov e: (1 ) Garre tt ha d p r ev io us ly be en co nv ic te d of a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by

im pr is on m en t of m or e th an on e y ear; (2 ) he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d a fir earm ; and (3 )

th e fir earm ha d be en in or affe ct ed in te rs ta te co m m erce

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Bra dl ey , 47 3 F.3 d 86 6, 86 7 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 7 )

. G arre tt st ip ul at ed th at he ha d pr ev io us ly be en

co nv ic te d of a fel on y an d th at bo th fir earm s ha d tra ve le d in in te rs ta te co m m erce

. At

is su e is whet he r he kn owi ng ly pos se ss ed bo th weap on s.

To es ta bl is h th is el em en t, th e go ve rn m en t co ul d pr ov e G a r r e t t ha d act ua l or

co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on of t h e fir earm

. Se e Eva ns , 4 31 F.3 d at 34 5. “ Co ns tru ct iv e

po ss es si on req ui res th at th e de fen da nt ‘has do m in io n ov er th e pr em is es whe re th e

fir earm is lo cat ed

, or co nt ro l, own ers hi p, or do m in io n ov er th e fir earm it se lf.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Max wel l

, 36 3 F.3 d 81 5, 81 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). “ Co ns tru ct iv e

po ss es si on m ay be es ta bl is he d by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce al on e, bu t th e go ve rn m en t

m us t sh ow a su ffi ci en t ne xu s be twee n th e de fen da nt an d th e fir earm .” Id

. (ci ti ng

Uni te d S ta te s v. Ho wa rd , 41 3 F .3d 86 1, 8 64 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) ).

A. Co un t On e

Garre tt arg ue s th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of a ne xu s

be twee n hi m an d th e fir earm fo un d on th e hi gh way

. Fo r su pp or t, he rel ie s on th e

te st im on y of hi s pa ss en ge r, Sara Ri ve ro , who st at ed th at sh e di d no t se e a weap on in

th e car. Ri ve ro al so te st ifi ed th at al th ou gh sh e ke pt he r he ad do wn du rin g th e ch as e,

sh e b el ie ve d s he wou ld ha ve fel t Gar ret t t hr ow a g un ou t t he win do w.

W hi le th e jury co ul d ha ve be li ev ed Ri ve ro ’s te st im on y , it was al so en ti tl ed to

di sr eg ard it

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s , 55 9 F.3d 83 1, 83 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng

th at it is wit hi n t he jury’ s pr ov in ce to res ol ve co nf li ct in g te st im on y ). In co nt ras t t o

Ri ve ro ’s t es ti m on y , C al de ro n te st ifi ed t h a t sh e sa w a si lv er ve hi cl e weav in g in an d

ou t of tra ffi c at a hi gh rat e of sp eed an d ob se rv ed a ha nd th ro w a gu n ou t of th e

-4

-win do w. Cal de ro n an d two ot he r wit ne ss es im m ed ia te ly pu ll ed o v e r an d no ti fie d

po li ce th at a ha nd gu n ha d jus t be en di sc ov ered on th e in te rs ta te

. Offi cers Mo or m an

an d San ti zo te st ifi ed th at th ey st op pe d Garre tt ’s si lv er car fo r a m in or tra ffi c vi ol at io n

an d th at whe n th ey r e q u es te d th at he ex it th e ve hi cl e, he le d th em on a hi gh sp eed

ch as e. The jury co ul d in fer from Garre tt ’s act io ns of fle ei ng th e sc en e o f th e tra ffi c

st op an d th e te st im on y ab ou t th e gu n th at he un la wfu ll y po s s e s s e d t h e fir earm an d

el ect ed to di sc ard it to av oi d cri m in al pe na lt ie s. Se e Uni te d St at e s v

. Wa l k e r , 39 3

F.3 d 84 2, 8 4 6

- 4 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at in cri m in at in g be ha vi or du rin g a

ro ut in e tra ffi c st op co ul d su pp or t a jury’ s de te rm in at io n th at th e de fen da nt po ss es se d

a fir earm in th e ve hi cl e); U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Bra dl ey , 47 3 F.3 d 86 6, 86 7- 68 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ) (h ol di ng su f

f i ci en t ev id en ce su pp or te d th e jury’ s gu il ty ve rd ic t whe n th e

de fen da nt rep eat ed ly reac he d do wn an d ch eck ed th e area whe re th e fir earm wa s fo und

an d th e de fen da nt fle d fro m po li ce aft er th e ve hi cl e in whi ch he was a pa ss en ge r was

st op pe d for a m in or vi ol at io n)

. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to

th e v erd ic t, we co nc lu de th at su ffi ci en t ev id en ce s up po rte d th e jury’ s g ui lt y ve rd ic t

on co un t o ne

.

B. Co un t Two

Garre tt arg ue s th e ev id en ce at tri al es ta bl is h e d t h a t he was m erel y in th e

vi ci ni ty of th e fi r e a r m f o un d in th e Des Mo in es , Io wa, res id en ce se arch ed on Sep te m be r 17 , 2 00 9. He cl ai m s no on e te st ifi ed th at he was awa r e o f t h e fir earm ’s

ex is te nc e.

Co nt rary to Garre tt ’s cl ai m , a p ol ic e of fic er as si st in g wit h th e se arch of th e

ho m e te st ifi ed th at Garre tt ad m it te d th at th e fir earm was hi s. M o r e o v e r , po li ce

of fic ers fo un d Garre tt an d hi s Ill in oi s id en ti fic at io n card in th e be dr oo m in whi ch th e

fir earm w a s lo cat ed

. Garre tt an d hi s gi rlf rie nd ad m it te d th at he st ay ed in th at

be dr oo m whe ne ve r he vi si te d. Thi s ev id en ce es ta bl is he d th at Garre tt ha d “ do m in io n

ov er th e pr em is es whe re th e fir earm [was ] lo cat ed .” Se e Eva ns , 43 1 F.3 d at 34 5. W e

-5

-co nc lu de th e ev id en ce pr es en te d by th e go ve rn men t w a s su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e

jury’ s ve rd ic t th at Garre tt kn owi ng ly po s s e s s e d t h e gu n fo un d in th e Des Mo in es , Io wa, res id en ce.

III. Mo ti on for a Mi st ria l

Garre tt arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g hi s req ue st fo r

a m is tri al whe n se ve ral wit ne ss es m en ti on ed dr ug s du rin g th e tri al

. Befo re tri al

, th e

di st ric t cou rt rul ed th at wit ne ss es sh ou ld no t di sc us s dru g in ve st ig at io ns

. Alt ho ug h

th e pr os ecu to r was su pp os ed t o i n f or m al l wit ne ss es of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng , Po li ce Offi cer Ro be rt Cl ark was in jure d im m ed ia te ly be fo re tri al an d th e pr os ecu to r

co ul d n ot m eet wit h h im

.

Offi cer C la rk tes ti fie d a t t ria l t ha t h e h ad be en “ li st en in g to po li ce ra di o [a nd

he ] be cam e aware of a ve hi cl e pu rs ui t th at was ha pp en in g in si de th e Ci t y o f D e s

Mo in es in vo lv in g na rco ti cs of fic ers

. The y were ch as i n g a v e hi cl e as pa rt of a

na rco ti cs in ve st ig at io n.” Garre tt ’s at to rn ey ob jecte d ou ts id e th e pr es en ce of th e jury,

an d th e di st ric t co ur t pr iv at el y ad m on is he d Offi cer Cl ark no t to di sc us s th e na rco ti cs

in ve st ig at io n. Offi cer C la rk di d n ot m en ti on dru gs ag ai n.

The fo ll owi ng da y , Garre tt m ov ed fo r a m is tri al

. Garre tt cl ai m ed th at Offi cer

Cl ark ’s refe ren ce to a na rco ti cs in ve st ig at io n was un fai rly pr e ju d ic ia l an d it was

un li ke ly th e jury wou ld no t co ns id er it in th ei r de li be rat io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

th e m ot io n, reas on in g th at th e br ie f m en ti on of a dr ug in ve st ig at io n wou ld no t im pa ct

th e jury’ s v erd ic t.

On ap pe al

, Garre tt arg ue s th e tri al was ta in te d by im pr op er refe ren ces to dr ug s,

th e m an uf

act ur e of dr

ug s, an d dr ug in ve st ig at io ns

. Offi cer Cl ark an d an ot he r po li ce

of fic er te st ifi ed th ey ha d rece iv ed na rco ti cs tra in in g, on e st a t e d h e was a na rco ti cs

in ve st ig at or an d th e ot he r di sc us se d hi s ro le on th e S.W .A.T. te am

. W at so n, a wit ne ss

-6

-cal le d by th e go ve rn m en t, al so ex pl ai ne d th e reas on ch il d se rv ic es was cal le d du rin g

th e ex ecu ti on of a se arch warra nt was be cau se dr ug s were fo un d in th e ho m e. Last ly,

Garre tt ta ke s is su e wit h th e cri m in al i s t ’s r e f e r en ce to a co ffee gr in de r us ed fo r th e

m an uf act ur e of dr ug s in res po ns e to a qu es ti on ab ou t whe n fin ge rp rin t po wde r is us ed

to aid an in ve st ig at io n. 3

“ W e wil l affi rm a di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on a m ot io n fo r a m is tri al ab se n t a n

ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Fr eg os o , 60 F.3d 13 14 , 13 28 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)
(in te rn al qu ot at io n and ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thi s is be cau se “ [t]he di st ric t co ur t is in a

far bet te r po si ti on to m eas ur e th e eff ect of a n i m

pr op er q ue st io n o n t he jury th an an

ap pe ll at e co ur t whi ch rev ie ws on ly th e co ld reco rd .” Uni te d St at es v. Nel so n , 98 4

F.2 d 8 94 , 89 7 (8 th Cir . 19 93 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

To de te r mi n e w he th er im pr op er te st im on y pr ejud ic ia ll y affe ct ed th e ve rd ic t,

th is co ur t co ns id ers th e co nt ex t of th e erro r an d t h e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce of th e

de fen da nt ’s gu il t. Uni te d St at es v. Hol li ns , 43 2 F.3 d 80 9, 81 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Here,

st at em en ts ab ou t “ dr ug s” or “d r ug in ve st ig at io ns ” di d no t pe rm eat e th e tri al

. Two

of fic ers te st ifi ed ab ou t tra in in g th ey ha d rece iv ed

, an d du rin g th ei r te st im on y ,

ex pl ai ne d th at th ey ha d rece iv ed so m e tra in i n g i n d r ug in ve st ig at io ns

. Ano th er

go ve rn m en t wit ne ss , a cri m in al is t, te st ifi ed ge ne ral ly ab ou t th e te ch ni qu es u se d to

en ha nc e th e ap pe aran ce of fin ge rp ri nts

. T he cr im in al is t st at ed th at fin ge rp rin t po wde r

is u s e d w h e n lo ok in g fo r fin ge rp rin ts on co ffee gr in de rs , whi ch are us ed in th e

G a r ret t di d no t ob

ject at tri al to th e of

fic ers ’ te st im on y reg ard in g th ei r 3

na rco ti cs tra in in g or th e cri m in al is t’s refe ren ce to dr ug m an uf act ur in g. An ob

jecti on

m ad e aft er th e di st ric t ha d an op po rtu ni ty to co rrec t or av oi d th e m is ta ke is rev ie wed
fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v. West , 61 2 F .3d 99 3, 9 96 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) . B ecau se

we fin d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n d e n yi ng th e m ot io n fo r a mi s t r i a l

, Garre tt can no t es ta bl is h th e fir st el em en t of pl ai n erro r. Ki rk

, 52 8 F.3 d a t
11 09

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err, le t al on e pl ai nl y err, in de nyin g Garre tt ’s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

.

-7

-m an uf

act ur e of dr ug s. Su ch te st im on y m erel y pr ov id e d b a c k gr ou nd ab ou t th e

wit ne ss es ’ qu al ifi cat io ns an d th e te ch ni qu es th ey em pl oyed an d was no t sp eci fic to

th e in ve st ig at io n i nt o Gar ret t’s i nv ol ve m en t i n t he us e o r sa le of n arco ti cs

.

The on l y s t at em en t sp eci fic to Garre tt was Offi cer Cl ark ’s co m m en t th at

of fic ers were ch as in g a ve hi cl e as pa rt of a na rco ti cs in ve st ig at io n. The go ve rn m en t 4

di d no t m en ti on th is co m

m en t du rin g th e op en in g st at em en t or cl os in g arg um en t. Se e

Uni te d St at es v. Rou ns av al l

, 11 5 F.3 d 56 1, 56 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (co ns id eri ng th at th e

ob jecti on ab le te st im on y was no t ex pl oi te d by th e go ve rn m en t). Mo reo ve r, it was an

i s o l a t e d c om m en t fro m on e wit ne ss in th e m id st of te st im on y fro m twel ve ot he r

wit ne ss es

. Se e id

. (co ns id eri ng th at on e wit ne ss m ad e two ob jecti on ab le co m

m en ts

, whi le th e rem ai ni ng 16 wit ne ss es di d no t im pe rm is si bl y te st ify); Hol li ns , 43 2 F.3 d at

81 2 (“ ‘[O] ne ob

jecti on ab le st at em en t by a pr os ecu ti on wit ne ss was no t su ffi ci en t to

crea te p reju di ci al erro r’” in li gh t of th e “ ‘w id e arra y of te st im on y ’” ag ai ns t th e

de fen da nt ) (q u o t i n g Uni te d St at es v. Co le

, 38 0 F.3 d 42 2, 42 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). In

li gh t of th e ex te ns iv e te st im on y fro m th e ot he r wit ne ss es , th is ob jecti on ab le st at em en t by Office r Cl ark di d n ot m eri t a m is tri al

.

W e no te th at on e ot he r co m m en t a b ou t dr ug s was m ad e du rin g th e tri al

. 4

Garre tt ’s at to rn ey as ke d W at so n why ch il d se rv ic es ha d be en cal le d aft er th e of fic ers

se arch ed th e D e s Mo in es , Io wa res id en ce. Sh e res po nd ed “ si nc e th ere were dr ug s fo un d in th e ho us e, th ey h ad to m ak e su re th at th e ki ds weren ’t affe ct ed by it .”
Alt ho ug h Garre tt ag ai n m ov ed fo r a m is tri al

, he ad m it te d th at he “as k e d fo r” th e

co m m en t by in qu iri ng of W at so n why ch il d se rv ic es was cal le d. The di st ric t co ur t

co rrec tl y reas on ed th at Garre tt op en ed th e do or fo r th is te st im on y , an d th eref or e di d

no t err in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al ba se d on th is st at em en t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Puc ket t , 14 7 F.3 d 76 5, 77 0 (8 th Cir . 19 98 ) (h ol di ng a m is tri al was n ot warran te d
whe n de fen se co un se l el ic it ed th e im p e r m is si bl e te st im on y th ro ug h it s qu es ti on in g of a wit ne ss ); Uni te d St at es v

. M u z a , 7 88 F.2 d 13 09

, 13 12 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (co ns id eri ng th at th e co m

m en ts res ul te d fro m qu es ti on in g by th e de fen se at to rn ey an d

were n ot th e p ro du ct of b ad fai th on th e p art of t he go ve rn m en t).

-8

-IV. Mo ti on to Sev er

Garre tt arg ue s th e co un ts were im pr op erl y joi ne d un de r Ru le 8 be cau s e no

co m m on al it y ex is ts be twee n th e co un ts

. In th e al te rn at iv e, Gar r e t t c o nt en ds th e

co un ts sh ou ld ha ve be en se ve red un de r Ru le 14 be cau se he was pr ejud ic ed by th e tri al

of bo th off en se s i n t he same case

.

A. Jo in de r

“ The rul es are t o b e li be ral ly con st ru ed in fav or of joi nd er.” Uni te d S ta te s v.

Rui z , 41 2 F.3 d 87 1, 88 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e rev ie w de no vo th e qu es ti on of whe th er

ch arg es can be joi ne d to ge th er. Uni te d St at es v. Tyn da ll

, 26 3 F.3 d 84 8, 84 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 01 ). Und er Ru le 8, m

ul ti pl e co un ts can be ch arg ed in a si ng le in di ct m en t as lon g

as th e of fen se s are (1) of th e sa m e or si m il ar char act er; (2 ) ba se d o n th e sa m e act or

tra ns act io n; o r ( 3 ) co ns ti tu te pa rts of a co m m on sc he m e or pl an

. Fed

. R. Cri m

. P.
8( a); Uni te d St at es v. Ki rk

, 52 8 F.3 d 11 02

, 11 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Th e go ve rn m en t

cl ai m s t he ch arg es were “ of th e sa m e o r si m il ar ch arac te r.”

“In ap pl y in g th e ‘sam e or si m il ar ch arac te r’ st an da rd

, [th is co ur t ha s] fo un d
joi nd er of of

fen se s to be pr op er whe n th e two co un ts refe r to th e sa m e type of

of fen se s oc cu rri ng ov er a rel at iv el y sh or t pe rio d of ti m e, an d th e ev id en ce as to each

co un t ov erl ap s.” Uni te d St at es v. Ro ba in a , 39 F.3 d 85 8, 86 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 )
(ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Here, bo th of Garre tt ’s co un ts were fo r th e sa m e

cri m e: be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. The of fen s e s , o c c u rri ng

ap pr ox im at el y fif

te en m on th s ap art

, to ok pl ace ov er a rel at iv el y sh or t pe rio d of ti m e.

Se e Uni te d St at es v. Li nd se y , 78 2 F.2 d 11 6, 11 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) ( c o n c l u d i ng th at

se ve nt een m on th s be twee n two fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm of fen s e s di d “ no t

vi ol at e th e ‘relat iv el y sh or t pe rio d of ti m e’” req ui rem en t); Uni te d St at es v. Rod ge rs , 73 2 F.2 d 62 5, 6 2 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (h ol di ng th at twen ty m on th s be twee n of fen se s

co ns ti tu te d a sh or t pe rio d of ti m e un d e r t he fact s of th at cas e); Uni te d St at es v.

-9

-Has ti ng

s , 57 7 F.2 d 3 8

, 40 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ) (p erm it ti ng joi nd er whe n two y ears

se pa r a t ed th e of

fen se s)

. Fi na ll y , th e ev id en ce as to each co un t ov erl ap pe d as th e

of fen se s were pr ed ic at ed on th e sa m e fel on y , an d ev id en ce of each of fen s e wou ld

ha ve be en ad m is si bl e un de r Ru l e 4 0 4 ( b ) t o pr ov e th e ot he r in se pa rat e tri al s.

The refo re, we co nc lu de th at th e two co un ts were pr op erl y joi ne d un de r Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 8( a).

B. Sev eran ce

Eve n if ch arg es are pr op erl y joi ne d un de r Ru le 8, a di st ric t co ur t m ay ex erci se

it s di sc ret io n an d se ve r th e ch arg es if th e de fen da nt wil l be pr ejud ic ed by th e joi nd er

of th e two ch arg es

. Tyn da ll

, 26 3 F.3 d at 85 0. “ Sev ere pr ejud ic e oc cu rs whe n a 5

de fen da nt is de pr iv ed of an ap pr eci ab le ch a n c e fo r an acq ui tt al

, a ch an ce th at [th e

de fen da nt ] wou ld ha ve ha d in a se ve red tri al .” Uni te d St at es v. Ko sk el a , 86 F.3 d 12 2,

12 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). “ [ T] he re is a st ro ng pr es um pt io n ag ai ns t se ve rin g pr op erl y joi ne d co un ts .” Uni te d St at es v. McCa rt he r , 59 6 F.3 d 43 8, 44 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The

de fen da nt be ars th e bu rd en o f e s t ab li sh in g pr ejud ic e. Uni te d St at es v. Hump hr eys , 98 2 F .2d 25 4, 2 59 (8t h C ir. 1 99 2)

.

W e ack no wled ge wha t ap pe ars to be a sp li t i n a ut ho rit y on th e ap pr op ria te 5

st an da rd of re v i e w w h e n a de fen da nt m ov es to se ve r th e co un ts du rin g a pr et ria l
he ari ng , bu t fail s to ren ew th e m ot io n at the clo se of t he go ve rn m en t’s case in ch ie f

o r a t th e cl os e of th e ev id en ce. Co mpa re Uni te d St at es v. Flo re s , 36 2 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( r e vi ewin g a m ot io n to se ve r un de r an ab us e of di sc ret io n

st an da rd ), wi th Uni te d St at es v. Mat hi so n , 15 7 F.3 d 54 1, 54 6 (8 th C i r

. 1 9 9 8 ) (rev ie win g th e de ni al of a m ot io n to se ve r fo r pl ai n erro r whe n th e de fen da nt s di d no t

m ov e to ren ew th ei r m ot io ns at th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e); se e al so Uni te d

St at es v. Ca rt er , 48 1 F.3 d 60 1

, 6 0 6 n .3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ack no wled gi ng th at “ th e

st an da rd of rev ie w ap pl ic ab le to th e de ni al of a se ve ran ce m ot io n ha s be en a su bjec t
of de ba te .”). Rev ie win g fo r ei th er pl ai n erro r or fo r an ab us e of di s c r e t i on , th e

ou tc om e in th is cas e rem ai ns th e sa m e. Se e Ca rt er , 48 1 F .3d at 6 06 n.3

.

-1 0-Garre tt ha s no t sh own pr ejud ic e. W e pr es um e Garre tt is cl ai m in g he was

pr ejud ic ed by t he jury u s i n g e v i d e nc e fro m on e of th e co un ts whe n de li be rat in g on

th e ot he r co un t, or th at th e jury m ay ha ve cu m ul at ed th e ev id en ce. Bu t pr ejud ic e do es

n o t r e s u l t if ev id en ce of on e ch arg e wou ld ha ve be en ad m is si bl e in th e tri al of t h e

ot he r. Uni te d St at e s v

. T a k e n Ali ve , 51 3 F.3 d 89 9, 90 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Here,

ev id en ce th at Garre tt un la wfu ll y po ss es se d a fir earm on on e oc cas io n was ad m is si bl e

to pr ov e he kn owi ng ly p os se ss ed a fir earm on an ot he r oc cas io n. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. W al ker

, 47 0 F.3 d 12 71

, 12 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ Evi de nc e th at a de fen da nt po ss es se d

a fir earm on a pr ev io us oc cas io n is rel ev an t to sh ow kn owl ed ge an d in te nt .”); Ta ken

Ali ve , 51 3 F.3 d at 90 3 (co nc lu di ng se ve ra n c e o f t w o ch arg es , fo r as sa ul ts th at

oc cu rred ap pr ox im at el y on e m on th ap art

, was no t req ui red be cau se ev id en ce of on e

as sa ul t co ul d be us ed to sh ow th e “ ab se nc e of m is ta ke or acci de nt or to sh ow in te nt ”

of th e ot he r as sa ul t). Bec au se Garre tt fai le d to es ta bl is h pr ejud ic e, th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y de ni ed hi s m ot io n t o s ev er.

V.

W e co nc lu de su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or ts th e co nv ic ti on s, th e di st rict co ur t di d

no t err in de nyin g th e m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in

de cl in in g to se ve r th e two co un ts

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t

co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-