Opinion ID: 2979235
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard for Fatal-Variance Claims

Text: “A variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are unchanged, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment.” United - 18 - No. 08-4296 United States v. Goff States v. Bearden, 274 F.3d 1031, 1039 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Within the context of a conspiracy, a variance constitutes reversible error only if a defendant demonstrates that he was prejudiced by the variance and that the indictment alleged one conspiracy, but the evidence can reasonably be construed only as supporting a finding of multiple conspiracies. In making this determination, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the government. Caver, 470 F.3d at 235-36 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). “Therefore, to obtain a reversal of his conviction based on a variance, a defendant must (1) demonstrate the variance, and (2) show that the variance affected a substantial right.” Warman, 578 F.3d at 341. Under the first prong, whether the evidence showed a single or multiple conspiracies generally is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. United States v. Hughes, 505 F.3d 578, 587 (6th Cir. 2007). “‘The principal considerations in determining the number of conspiracies are the existence of a common goal, the nature of the scheme, and the overlapping of the participants in various dealings.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Smith, 320 F.3d 647, 652 (6th Cir. 2003)). “Where the evidence demonstrates only multiple conspiracies, a defendant is prejudiced if the error of trying multiple conspiracies under a single indictment substantially influenced the outcome of the trial.” Caver, 470 F.3d at 237 (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 238 U.S. 750, 765 (1956)); see also Hughes, 505 F.3d at 587 (“To demonstrate substantial prejudice, the appellant must show that the variance prejudiced his ability to defend himself or prejudiced the overall fairness of the trial.”). The primary risk that the variance doctrine is designed to alleviate is guilt transference—“that the appellant was convicted based on evidence of a conspiracy in which the appellant did not participate.” Hughes, 505 F.3d at 587. “This risk increases in direct proportion - 19 - No. 08-4296 United States v. Goff to the number of defendants, and the number of conspiracies demonstrated at trial.” Caver, 470 F.3d at 237. Even where a defendant shows that there was a variance that resulted in guilt transference, “typically any danger of prejudice can be cured with a cautionary instruction to the jury that if it finds multiple conspiracies, it cannot use evidence relating to one conspiracy in determining another conspiracy.” Hughes, 505 F.3d at 587. However, the ability of limiting jury instructions to cure such a defect decreases as the amount of evidence unrelated to the defendant’s conduct or the conspiracy in which the defendant participated increases. Id.