Opinion ID: 52060
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Bradley’s Motion for Severance

Text: Bradley next argues that he suffered compelling prejudice when the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for severance and required him to 27 be jointly tried with Blasingame. Bradley argues that he was prejudiced in two ways: (1) Davis was allowed to read the transcript of his plea colloquy which contained assertions that the defendants had threatened him while they were in custody; and (2) Blasingame pursued a trial strategy which confirmed to the jury that he was in pre-trial custody. Bradley further argues that because the evidence against him relied entirely upon word of mouth, with no physical evidence to corroborate the stories of the co-conspirators, the prejudice he suffered was compelling. “The general rule in this circuit is that defendants who are jointly indicted should be tried together, and this rule has been held to be particularly applicable to conspiracy cases.” United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 857 (11th Cir. 1985). A severance under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure should be granted only if the defendant can demonstrate that a joint trial would result in specific and compelling prejudice to the conduct of his defense. United States v. Marzalkowski, 669 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1982). When a district court denies a defendant’s motion to sever, we review that denial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jacoby, 955 F.2d 1527, 1542 (11th Cir. 1992). We will only reverse a district court’s denial of a severance motion if the denial “result[ed] in compelling prejudice against which the district court could offer no protection.” United States 28 v. Walser, 3 F.3d 388, 385 (11th Cir. 1993). The test for compelling prejudice is “whether under all the circumstances of a particular case, as a practical matter, it is within the capacity of the jury to follow the [instructions] and accordingly . . . appraise the independent evidence against each defendant’s own acts, statements and conduct.” United States v. Kabbaby, 672 F.2d 857 (11th Cir. 1982). Further, even if a defendant can show some prejudice, a defendant is entitled to severance only if that “prejudice flowing from a joint trial is clearly beyond the curative powers of precautionary instruction.” United States v. Morrow, 537 F.2d 120, 126 (5th Cir. 1977). Here, Bradley argues compelling prejudice is established because testimony of a threat made by Blasingame, that improperly implied that Bradley also threatened the witness, was admitted and because Blasingame chose to freely admit to the jury that he was in custody during the trial. First, the district court specifically instructed the jury that the testimony regarding the threat should only be considered against Blasingame and not Bradley. Because the district court gave appropriate instructions to the jury and Bradley has offered no evidence suggesting that the jury was unable to follow the court’s instructions, the threat testimony does not establish compelling prejudice. In addition, because compelling prejudice does not exist merely because there is evidence at trial that is applicable only to a co29 defendant, the fact that Blasingame chose to inform the jury that he was in custody does not establish compelling prejudice either. See United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 857 (11th Cir. 1985) (“defendant does not suffer ‘compelling prejudice’ simply because much of the evidence at trial is applicable only to his codefendants.”) C. Agent Fonseca’s Statement that a Witness Refused to Testify out of Fear Bradley argues that the district court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence that a witness refused to testify at trial due to fear. Bradley argues the district court erred in allowing Agent Fonseca to testify that Jeff Ridley, who was involved in one of the earlier robbery attempts but later withdrew from the conspiracy, was scared to testify against the defendants. Bradley argues that allowing Agent Fonseca’s testimony violated the confrontation clause because his statement was testimonial hearsay. He further argues that because the evidence in the case consisted solely of the testimony of co-conspirators, without independent corroboration, the admission of this statement by the non-testifying declarant cannot be considered harmless, and the conviction should be reversed. Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” “Statement” is further defined 30 as “(1) an oral or written assertion, or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” FED. R. EVID. 801(a). Here, Agent Fonseca stated, “[Ridley] flat-out did not want to testify; he was scared to testify against the defendants.” This statement is not hearsay. Agent Fonseca neither repeats Ridley’s oral statements nor describes Ridley’s nonverbal conduct. Agent Fonseca simply asserted that in his opinion Ridley refused to testify because he was scared to testify against the defendant. His statement may have been an irrelevant opinion;7 however, it is not hearsay. D. Prosecutors’ Cross-examination of Bradley’s Alibi Witnesses Bradley argues that counsel for the Government was allowed to ask Bradley’s alibi witnesses questions regarding events which negatively impacted the witnesses’ characters. He asserts that the prosecution’s purpose for asking these damaging questions was not to test the memory of the witnesses regarding dates, but rather to improperly attack the witnesses’ characters. Yet, the Government asserts that the questions were designed to demonstrate that the witnesses’ testimonies were unworthy of belief because none could remember significant 7 Although Bradley attempted to argue that Agent Fonseca’s opinion was irrelevant opinion testimony at oral argument, by failing to raise the argument in his brief, he has waived the issue. McFarlin v. Conseco Services, LLC, 381 F.3d 1251, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004) (“A party is not allowed to raise at oral argument a new issue for review.”); Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Fulton County, 242 F.3d 976, 987 n.16 (11th Cir. 2001)(issue not developed in a party’s brief is waived). 31 events which had occurred in their own lives. Bradley called three alibi witnesses. The mother of his child, Larhonda Ward, testified that on the morning of the attempted robbery she was suffering from such severe morning sickness that Bradley had to drive her to work and he therefore could not have been at Mahan’s home gearing up for the robbery. However, on cross-examination, Ward admitted that her son was born exactly nine months after the attempted robbery, a fact which established that at the time she claimed to be having morning sickness she was only at the most a few days pregnant. Jeffrey Christian and Ronald Christian testified that they cut defendant Bradley’s grass on the day of the robbery and that they recalled that at exactly 9:15 a.m. that day they were talking to him in the backyard. On cross-examination, Government counsel questioned both men regarding their recollection of events which had occurred in their personal lives. Ronald Christian was asked about the birth of his child, an award he received, and a reprimand he had received at work. Jefferey Christian was questioned about his recollection of a speeding ticket he received less than one week after the robbery and about his firing by his employer on suspicion of theft. In each instance the witness had no recollection of the dates and times of significant events in his own life, but they both maintained that they recalled the date and specific time at which they had a backyard conversation with 32 Bradley. “[E]vidence relevant to a material issue is not rendered inadmissible because it happens to include references to specific bad acts of a witness. Extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior misconduct should be excluded where that evidence is probative only of the witness' general propensity for truthfulness.” United States v. Calle, 822 F.2d 1016, 1021 (11th Cir. 1987). The prosecutor’s questions were relevant to show that it was unlikely that the alibi witnesses could actually remember the exact time and date of everyday events that occurred over a year prior when the same witnesses could not remember the exact time and date of significant events that occurred in their respective lives around the same time. Accordingly, the questions were not offered solely as evidence of the witnesses’ general propensity for truthfulness and were properly admitted. E. Prosecutor’s Recitation of Witnesses’ Prior Testimony Bradley argues that the district court erred in allowing prosecutors to read several witnesses’ prior testimony aloud. He argues that the proper method would have been to ask if a witness recalled the testimony, and if not, to refresh the witness’s recollection by allowing them to silently review the testimony. While Bradley is correct in his explanation of the requirements of Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, he neglects to consider Rule 801. 33 Rule 801 provides that a prior consistent statement of a declarant testifying at trial and subject to cross-examination is admissible when offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication, improper influence or motive. FED. R. EVID. 801 (d)(1)(B). Thus, to rebut an express or implied charge that the witness is motivated, has been influenced to testify falsely, or that the witness’s testimony is a recent fabrication, evidence is admissible that the witness told the same story before the motive or influence came into existence or before the time of the alleged recent fabrication. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 157, 115 S.Ct. 701, 130 L.Ed.2d 574 (1995). Moreover, “[w]here credibility has been challenged on the basis of facts absent from the prior statement, the [prior] statement [is] admitted when it [is] consistent with the remaining testimony.” United States v. Hamilton, 689 F.2d 1262, 1273 (6th Cir. 1982) (citing United States v. Lombardi, 550 F.2d 827, 828 (2nd Cir. 1977)). Here, defense counsel suggested to the jury that both Mahan and Davis recently fabricated their testimony because they failed to include specific facts in prior statements each had given to authorities. Accordingly, this assertion entitled the Government, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), to respond by demonstrating, with evidence of the witness’s prior consistent statements to the court, that the witness had indeed told authorities the specific facts referred to by 34 defense counsel.