Opinion ID: 325263
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: denial of motions for severance, mistrial, and dismissal

Text: 20 Appellants Wayman, Noe, Moore, and Hutcheson contend that the trial court erred in denying their various motions after the witness J. Wayne Schilling testified that he had had dealings with Wayman and a company called Franchise Funding International but that he had never had any contact with Allied Mortgage. 4 Defendant Shaffer's attorney moved for a severance on the ground that the nature of the case (fifty-three counts, sixteen named defendants) was too complicated to allow a fair trial. Defendants Fitzpatrick and Donahue joined in this motion and added that, in the alternative, the motion be for a mistrial. Defendant Smith joined in the motion and added the additional ground of mutually harmful defense tactics by different defendants. Appellant Hutcheson moved for a dismissal on the ground that the indictment improperly joined a number of conspiracies in one count charging a single conspiracy. Defendants Fitzpatrick and Donahue amended their motion to include this general ground. Appellant Noe adopted all these motions. The trial court denied all these motions. 21 Under Rule 8, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defendants may be joined in the indictment and at trial if 'they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.' Once the requirements of Rule 8 have been satisfied, it is then within the sound discretion of the trial court whether the defendants will be tried separately or jointly. The appellant has a heavy burden of showing prejudice when a severance is not granted. United States v. Iacovetti, 466 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Harris, 441 F.2d 1333 (10th Cir. 1971). The mere fact that the conspiracy involved multitudinous and complex transactions is no reason for this court to reverse the denial of the motion to sever or the alternative motion for a mistrial, or the motion to dismiss. 22 The testimony of Schilling and that of the later witness Anna Harrison was evidence pointing toward a conspiracy other than that charged in the indictment. However, appellants' reliance upon Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) is misplaced. There the Supreme Court held that the government could not prove one overall conspiracy by showing that there were eight smaller conspiracies; the only nexus among the smaller conspiracies was that one man participated in all of them. The case before us shows at most simply a variance from the indictment, in that there was evidence of a smaller conspiracy in addition to the bigger, overall conspiracy. Proof of multiple conspiracies does not automatically constitute a fatal variance from a single offense as charged in the indictment. 'The true inquiry . . . is not whether there has been a variance of proof, but whether there has been such a variance as to 'affect the substantial rights' of the accused.' Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82, 55 S.Ct. 629, 630, 79 L.Ed. 1314, 1318 (1935). This point was recognized by the Court in Kotteakos: 'Leeway there must be for such cases as the Berger situation and for others where proof may not accord with exact specifications in the indictment.' 328 U.S. at 773, 66 S.Ct. at 1252, 90 L.Ed. at 1571. See also United States v. Cruz, 478 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1973); Grissette v. United States, 313 F.2d 187 (5th Cir. 1963). 23 Here, as in Robinson v. United States, 333 F.2d 950 (5th Cir. 1964), the appellants make the 'somewhat technical argument' that whereas the indictment charged a single conspiracy, the proof adduced by the government showed a separate conspiracy and that a fatal variance resulted. Even if we assume that there was a variance, we must still inquire whether the variance affected the substantial rights of the appellants. In Robinson we reiterated our ruling in Jolley v. United States, 232 F.2d 83, 88 (5th Cir. 1960): 'If more than one conspiracy was proved, of at least one of which the appellant was guilty, it is clear that there was no variance affecting his substantial rights.' We reach the same conclusion in the case now before us. Our case in more like Berger than Kotteakos, and we find Berger controlling.