Opinion ID: 172566
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Early Severance Motions

Text: In Mr. Pursley's first severance motion, he claimed that essential exculpatory evidencethe testimony of Mr. Shields and Mr. Templemanwas available to him only if he was tried separately from them. He requested time to submit evidentiary support for the motion. Approximately two weeks after filing this initial motion to sever, Mr. Pursley joined Mr. Wardell's motion to sever. This joint motion was later amended. The amended motion argued, inter alia, that [i]n a joint trial, Messrs. Shields and Templeman would be forced to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. R., Vol. I, Doc. 151, at 7 (Def. Wardell's Mot. to Sever (Am.), filed Oct. 31, 2005). At a severed trial, however, Mr. Shields and Mr. Templeman would testify that Mr. Pursley and Mr. Wardell did not identify Mr. Cluff as a rat and that Mr. Pursley and Mr. Wardell did not instruct them to assault Mr. Cluff. We hold that the district court, in its order denying both motions, properly considered and applied each of the McConnell factors. We rest our conclusion upon the absence, at the time the motions were filed, of affidavits from Mr. Shields and Mr. Templeman validating Mr. Wardell's assertionsthat is, expressing an intention to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege in a joint trial, stating that they would testify in a severed trial, and identifying the exculpatory content of their testimony. In fact, the amended motion effectively conceded the uncertainty of such testimony by asking for permission to submit affidavits from Mr. Shields and Mr. Templeman  if, and when, they are received. Id. at 8 (emphasis added). Such speculation is insufficient to require severance. See United States v. Dirden, 38 F.3d 1131, 1141 n. 13 (10th Cir.1994) (affirming denial of motion to sever because nothing suggested codefendant would have testified, that his testimony, if given, would have been helpful ..., or that his testimony would have been in any way exculpatory).