Opinion ID: 716393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: severance and misjoinder

Text: 25 Cisneros-Silva, Brahms-Garcia, and Sanchez-Cervantes argue that Count Eight of the indictment, which charged Sanchez-Cervantes with illegally reentering the United States after being deported for prior drug crimes was misjoined with the other counts of the indictment. Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8, joinder of charges against multiple defendants is permissible only if the defendants '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.'  United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 550 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Fed.R.Crim.P. 8). 26 This issue was discussed by our previous panel, and it found that the defendants' motions to sever below were based on Fed.R.Crim.P. 14, not on Rule 8. This Court has ruled that a motion for severance based on Rule 14 does not preserve a Rule 8 misjoinder objection for appeal. United States v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841, 850 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1032 (1987). The prior panel held that a review of the motions filed reveals that defendants' arguments were based solely on Rule 14, and concluded that the Rule 8 issue was not raised below and was waived. 27 Cisneros-Silva mentions Rule 8 in the body of his motion to sever. However, Cisneros-Silva's motion was brought under Rule 14, therefore, he waived the issue of misjoinder under Rule 8. Brahms-Garcia and Sanchez-Cervantes joined in Cisneros-Silva's motion to sever. Since Brahms-Garcia and Sanchez-Cervantes' preservation of this issue is derivative from Cisneros-Silva, they have also waived the issue of misjoinder under Rule 8.
28 Cisneros-Silva, Castillo-Arvizu, and Brahms-Garcia claim that the district court erred in failing to grant them a Rule 14 severance. Rule 14 provides that a defendant may move to sever co-defendants for trial where joinder of defendants is prejudicial to the defendant. 29 The district court has wide discretion in ruling on a severance motion. United States v. Vaccaro, 816 F.2d 443, 449 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 928 (1987). To satisfy this heavy burden, an appellant must show that the joint trial was so prejudicial as to require the exercise of the trial court's discretion in only one way: by ordering a separate trial. United States v. Mariscal, 939 F.2d 884 (9th Cir.1991) (citation omitted). 30 The previous panel found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 14 motion to sever. Pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case, we choose not to reopen this issue and affirm the district court on this issue.