IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 05-00266-WS

 )

JASON WATSON, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to sever. (Doc. 140). The

government has filed a response, (Doc. 157), and the defendant has elected to file no reply. (Doc.

149). After carefully considering the foregoing materials, the Court concludes that the motion to sever

is due to be denied.

The defendant is named in Counts One, Twenty-One, and Twenty-Two of the 24-count

indictment. Count One charges the defendant, along with each of his co-defendants, with conspiring

with intent to distribute powder cocaine and crack cocaine. (Doc. 1 at 1-2). Counts Twenty-One and

Twenty-Two charge the defendant with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. (Id. at 11-

12). The remaining counts charge various other defendants with possession with intent to distribute

powder cocaine and/or crack cocaine. The defendant’s perfunctory, one-sentence motion argues that

the substantive counts against his co-defendants “involve activity that was not ... part of the same

common scheme or plan as the activity involved in the remaining counts.” (Doc. 140). 

The defendant’s motion contains no legal citation, but the quoted language tracks Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 8(a), which states that “[t]he indictment or information may charge a defendant in

separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged ... are connected with or constitute

parts of a common scheme or plan.” Because the defendant is not in fact challenging the joinder of

charges against him but the joinder of charges against him with those against other defendants, the

Court concludes that he is attempting to invoke Rule 8(b). That rule provides that “[t]he indictment or

information may charge 2 or more defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or

transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.” Fed. R.

Case 1:05-cr-00266-WS-B Document 185 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 2
1Based on the government’s brief, the assertion also appears incorrect.

-2-

Crim. P. 8(b). 

“Rule 8 is broadly construed in favor of the initial joinder. ... The question of whether initial

joinder is proper under Rule 8(b) is to be determined before trial by examination by the trial court of the

allegations stated on the face of the indictment.” United States v. Weaver, 905 F.2d 1466, 1476

(11th Cir. 1990)(internal quotes omitted). “[J]oinder of offenses and defendants under Fed. R. Crim. P.

8(b) is proper where, as here, an indictment charges multiple defendants with participation in a single

conspiracy and also charges some but not all of the defendants with substantive counts arising out of the

conspiracy.” United States v. Day, 405 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005)(internal quotes omitted). 

Because the indictment charges that multiple defendants engaged in a single conspiracy and also

charges various defendants with substantive counts arising out of the conspiracy, joinder is proper

under Rule 8(b). The defendant’s complaint that “the discovery materials provided by the

Government” suggest otherwise, (Doc. 240), is simply irrelevant, as the Court’s consideration under

Rule 8 is limited to the terms of the indictment itself.1

Rule 14 allows severance if joinder “appears to prejudice a defendant.” Fed. R. Crim. P.

14(a). The defendant has neither invoked Rule 14 nor alleged prejudice. Accordingly, he cannot

obtain relief under this rule. 

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cr-00266-WS-B Document 185 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2