Opinion ID: 2966437
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Amount of Drugs Attributed to James Hayden

Text: James argues that the district court incorrectly attributed too many drugs to him. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not err in its calculation of the drugs attributable to James Hayden. G. Two-level Enhancement of James Hayden's Offense Level for Obstruction of Justice The district court enhanced James's sentence by two levels for obstruction of justice based on the threatening letter and the telephone conversation where he attempted to discourage witnesses from testifying. As for the letter, James argues that the letter was anonymous and 9 that there is no proof that he was the one who sent it. As previously explained, based on the letter recipient's testimony and the content of the letter, a trier of fact could reasonably infer that James wrote the letter. As for the phone call, James argues that it is not obstruction of justice for an individual to caution a potential witness against perjury. As evidence of his innocence, James points out that he prefaced his threat with you know that is not my voice on the tape [referring to one of the tapes of a drug deal]. James's argument is absurd. He threatened Powell and his family if Powell testified. That is not the action of an innocent man warning against perjury, but of someone obstructing justice by threatening a witness. H. Tomel Lucas's Motion for Severance Lucas argues that the court committed reversible error in his case by denying his motion for a severance. Lucas contends that he suffered irreparable prejudice because the evidence against him was minimal when compared to his co-defendants and because the majority of prejudicial testimony did not apply to him, especially the evidence regarding James's threats to witnesses.6 In particular, he relies on the fact that the judge failed to give any curative instructions on the Rule 404(b) evidence admitted against James regarding the threats James made to witnesses. Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that [t]wo or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction. In such cases the federal system prefers joint trials because they promote efficiency and serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts. Zafiro v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 933, 937 (1993) (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 (1987)). Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, provides that joinder, even when appropriate under 8(b), may be so prejudicial that the defendants should be tried separately. Id. _________________________________________________________________ 6 Additionally, Monique Taylor testified that Reginald called her and asked her not to say that he had been in New York. 10 The mere showing of prejudice is not enough to require severance. Zafiro, 113 S.Ct. at 938. Rather, tailoring of relief, if any, for any potential prejudice resulting from a joint trial is left to the district court's sound discretion. Id. Thus, the court reviews a district court's refusal to grant a severance for abuse of discretion. West, 877 F.2d at 287-88. That discretion is abused only if there[wa]s a serious risk that a joint trial would [have] compromis[ed] a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent[ed] the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence. Zafiro , 113 S.Ct. at 938. Often, less drastic measures, such as limiting instructions, act to cure any risk of prejudice. Id. Indeed, the government recognized the curative effect of limiting instructions when arguing against a severance based on 404(b) materials. Counsel stated if that [404(b)] evidence is admitted, it's going to be extremely brief and extremely precise, and the Court could give a limiting instruction pointing out that Mr. Lucas has not allegedly threatened anybody or tried to alter anyone's testimony. Following that argument, the court denied the motion for a severance by concluding that there were no grounds for severing. Ultimately, however, the court gave no limiting instructions; but, none were requested by Lucas's counsel.7 While we do not approve of the failure to give limiting instructions in a joint trial, the failure to give them does not per se constitute reversible error as to the district judge's refusal to sever the trial.8 Rather, our ultimate inquiry is whether the trial compromise[d] a specific trial right of . . . the defendant[ ], or prevent[ed] the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence. Zafiro, 113 S.Ct. at 938. Under that inquiry, we find no error in the refusal to grant a motion for severance. The evidence against Lucas was fairly strong. Powell testified that Lucas weighed the crack cocaine as James cooked it. Lucas also, according to Powell, helped distribute the crack cocaine and made a _________________________________________________________________ 7 The government does not contest that no limiting instructions were given. 8 James has not appealed the district court's failure to give limiting instructions. 11 trip to New York to purchase cocaine. Other evidence corroborates Powell's testimony as to Lucas's trip to New York: on an audio tape, Lucas admitted to traveling to New York to pick up cocaine; one witness testified that a person with an alias Lucas was known to use had purchased an airplane ticket to New York and made the trip; and Monique Taylor testified that she saw Lucas in New York during the time the alleged trip occurred. Another witness testified that he purchased cocaine from Lucas. Additionally, the case was not so complex that the jury could not separate the evidence as to each defendant. For those reasons, we find that a jury could have made an individual determination as to Lucas's guilt and that any spill-over effect from the 404(b) evidence admitted against James did not prejudice Lucas.