Opinion ID: 182629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tellez’ Severance Motion

Text: This Court reviews “the district court’s denial of severance for a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. at 237. However, where a claim for severance was denied but not renewed, the Court reviews the issue for plain error. United States v. Allen, 160 F.3d 1096, 1106 (6th Cir. 1998).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) 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. The defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately.” FED . R. CRIM . P. 8(b). However, “if the joinder of offenses or defendants in an indictment . . . appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may . . . sever the defendants’ trials.” FED . R. CRIM . P. 14(a). This Court has held that “a strong policy presumption exists in favor of joint trials when charges will be proved by the same evidence and result from the same acts,” as in a conspiracy trial. Caver, 470 F.3d at 238. “Society has an interest in speedy and efficient trials . . . and . . . only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the 12 Nos. 09-5200, 09-5201 defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable determination about guilt or innocence,” should the trials be severed. Id. Therefore, “a defendant seeking severance at trial bears a strong burden and must demonstrate substantial, undue, or compelling prejudice.” Id. Tellez moved for severance twice after his co-defendant encountered Juror Number 3 and Juror Number 12, arguing that Davis’ encounter with the jurors prejudiced Tellez. Tellez argues that the district court abused its discretion in failing to rule on his renewed motion for severance which he raised prior to the Remmer hearing. However, Tellez failed to renew his motion for severance either at the close of the Remmer hearing, or at the close of evidence generally. This Court has “unequivocally stated that failure to renew a motion to sever at the close of evidence results in waiver of the motion.” Allen, 160 F.3d at 1106. Thus, Tellez’ severance motion is considered waived.