Opinion ID: 2978752
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Atkins’s motion to sever trials

Text: Atkins next argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial from that of McDonel, contending that the prosecution’s use of responses given by McDonel during an interrogation at the time of his arrest was prejudicial. During this interrogation, McDonel confessed to robbing one of the AutoZone stores with another person known as “O.G.” (short for “Original -7- Nos. 08-2182, 08-2304 United States v. McDonel; United States v. Atkins Gangster,” a nickname for Atkins). Prior to trial, the district court ruled that those responses in which McDonel identified Atkins as an accomplice would be suppressed, and it further ordered that the redacted interrogation transcript be read into evidence to prevent the jury from knowing about the redactions. The prosecution then introduced this evidence at trial by having the police officer who conducted the interrogation read for the jury the questions he asked and McDonel’s answers. For the first two questions, the prosecutor noted the sequential number of the question asked (i.e., “With regard to the first question you asked, what did you ask him?”), but upon Atkins’s objection, the court ordered the prosecutor to refrain from referring to the order of the questions. The court also instructed the jury that the interrogation responses were to be used as evidence against McDonel only. Atkins nonetheless maintains that, despite the court’s efforts, he was prejudiced by the inclusion of McDonel’s responses. Regardless of the merits of his argument, the claim is waived because Atkins failed to renew his motion at the close of all the evidence. “A motion to sever counts or co-defendants is deemed waived if it is not renewed at the end of the evidence.” United States v. Harris, 293 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). There is no evidence in the record that Atkins’s trial counsel renewed his motion at any time, and Atkins makes no such contention in his brief. Atkins has therefore waived this claim on appeal.