Opinion ID: 166613
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Modification of Trial Procedure

Text: 25 Nickl claims the court violated his right to due process when, on the first day of trial, it announced it would modify trial procedures by bifurcating the trial into distinct guilt and sentencing phases. Nickl further claims the court violated his due process rights when it amended the superceding indictment by removing certain language relevant to a sentencing enhancement. 26 After the Supreme Court foreshadowed changes in the application of federal sentencing guidelines in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), 3 the government in Nickl's case filed a superseding indictment which alleged new facts in an effort to support sentencing enhancements. The new indictment charged Nickl with the same offenses as before, but also alleged Nickl's crimes (1) involved more than minimal planning, and (2) jeopardized the safety and soundness of NBA. 27 Nickl requested a status conference and a continuance to frame and brief the issues raised by the new indictment. The court denied the continuance. On the first day of trial, the district court announced it would address sentencing issues by bifurcating the trial into distinct guilt and penalty phases. If Nickl was found guilty, the trial would move on to a sentencing phase and the jury would determine issues relating to the forfeiture charge and sentencing, including the allegation that Nickl jeopardized the safety and soundness of NBA. At the same time, the court declared it would excise from the superceding indictment the allegation that the fraud scheme involved more than minimal planning, because it was no longer grounds for a sentence enhancement under the sentencing guidelines. After hearing the evidence, the jury found Nickl did not substantially jeopardize the safety and soundness of NBA. 28 Nickl argues the court's modification of trial procedures and amendment of the superceding indictment violated his right to due process because the court's actions were without notice to the parties or legal authority. This court reviews de novo whether a defendant's due process rights have been violated. United States v. Walters, 269 F.3d 1207, 1215 (10th Cir.2001). To establish a due process violation, an individual must show he or she has sustained prejudice as a result of the allegedly insufficient notice. Long v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 117 F.3d 1145, 1158 (10th Cir.1997). 29 Nickl has not suggested or demonstrated he was in any way prejudiced by the court's decision to bifurcate the trial. Nickl notes bifurcation delayed mention of the safety and soundness sentencing factor until the penalty phase of the trial, but does not indicate how such delay harmed him. Indeed, Nickl cannot identify harm because the jury specifically acquitted Nickl of jeopardizing NBA's safety and soundness. Finally, Nickl cannot show he was harmed by the court's decision to excise the more than minimal planning sentencing factor from the indictment. The court's decision eliminated one of the grounds for sentence enhancement, and Nickl could have only benefitted from the decision. Because Nickl cannot demonstrate he was prejudiced by the district court's modifications to the trial procedures, his due process claim fails. 30