Opinion ID: 3064120
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Severance of Charges

Text: Galdos argues that the district court improperly joined the money laundering and false testimony charges and should have severed the charges for trial. Because Galdos did not move for a severance of the charges in the district court and raises the severance issue for the first time on appeal, we review this issue only for plain error. See Khoury, 901 F.2d at 966. To determine whether charges were properly tried jointly, this Court conducts a two-step inquiry. United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 385 (11th Cir. 1993). First, the Court determines whether the initial joinder of offenses was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a). Id. Rule 8(a) allows for joinder of offenses “if the offenses charged . . . are of the same or similar 19 character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). If the joinder was proper, the Court then determines whether the district court’s failure to sever the charges resulted in “compelling prejudice against which the district court could offer no protection.” Walser, 3 F.3d at 385. This inquiry requires an assessment of “whether under all the circumstances of a particular case it is within the capacity of jurors to follow a court’s limiting instructions and appraise the independent evidence against a defendant solely on that defendant’s own acts, statements, and conduct in relation to the allegations contained in the indictment and render a fair and impartial verdict.” Id. at 386-87. Galdos has not shown that the district court plainly erred in trying the charges together. First, the charges were joined properly under Rule 8(a) because they constituted parts of a common scheme or plan of: (1) defrauding Medicare; (2) laundering the fraudulent proceeds; and (3) obstructing the law enforcement investigation of the fraud and money laundering offenses. This common scheme was shown by the evidence at trial that: (1) Araas instructed Galdos when they first discussed creating Associate Marketing that Galdos should deny any knowledge of the company and say that his identification had been stolen if any trouble arose; (2) Galdos followed Araas’s instructions during his interviews with 20 FBI agents and testimony before the grand jury; and (3) Araas repeated these instructions to Galdos on the phone after Galdos’s first interview with the FBI agents. Thus, the charge of testifying falsely before the grand jury was directly connected to the money laundering conspiracy. Second, the joinder of the charges did not result in compelling prejudice to Galdos. The district court instructed the jury that a separate crime had been charged in each count of the indictment, that each charge and the evidence pertaining to it should be considered separately, and that the fact that the jury may find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to one charge should not affect its verdict as to any other charge. The fact that the jury found Galdos not guilty of some counts demonstrates that the jury instructions offered sufficient protection against prejudice and that the jury considered each count separately. See United States v. York, 428 F.3d 1325, 1334 (11th Cir. 2005). Thus, Galdos has failed to show that the district court plainly erred by joining these charges and by not sua sponte ordering that they be severed for trial.2