Opinion ID: 765595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Severance of the Explosives Counts

Text: 26 Fiorillo argues that the district court misjoined the explosives counts with the wire fraud and hazardous waste counts against him. Misjoinder of charges is an issue of law reviewed de novo. United States v. VonWillie, 59 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 1995). 27 The standard for determining whether two or more offenses should be tried together is set out in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a). 5 In determining whether the offenses are based on the same transaction,  `transaction' is to be interpreted flexibly and may comprehend a series of related occurrences. United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 276 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). In making an assessment of whether joinder was proper, this court examines only the allegations in the indictment. VonWillie, 59 F.3d at 929. 28 In VonWillie, this court held that testimonial and physical evidence relating to the location, discovery, and seizure of firearms were factors favoring joinder of the charges. See id. In this case, the explosives and hazardous materials were both stored in the same warehouse, the discovery of the explosives led to the discovery of the hazardous materials, and both the explosives and the hazardous material were being stored without proper permits. All of these facts indicate that the explosives charges and the hazardous material charges were of similar character, meeting the requirements of Rule 8(a). Additionally, at least three witnesses testified at the trial concerning both the explosives and the hazardous waste. The district court did not err in concluding that joinder of the charges was proper. 29 Even if misjoinder had occurred in this case, reversal is only required if the misjoinder results in actual prejudice because it had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Terry, 911 F.2d at 277 (internal quotation marks omitted). Fiorillo has not met this requirement. He argues that the jury was prejudiced because the explosives counts constituted evidence of other crimes and that the knowledge that he stored 17,000 artillery shells in a warehouse close to hazardous materials was inflammatory. However, at the close of trial, the judge charged the jury to deliberate on the elements of each charge separately and reminded them that a separate crime was charged against each defendant. 30 This militates against a finding of prejudice. See United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 771 (9th Cir. 1995). Judicial economy justifies reliance on the jury to follow the instructions of the court that segregate the evidence and limit the applicability of the evidence as to each count. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).