Opinion ID: 727068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Denial of West's Motion to Sever Count Six

Text: 54 West contends that she was denied an adequate opportunity to defend herself against Count Six of the indictment (money laundering through the Honda Civic), first because the government amended the count only four days before trial, and second because the district court misled her into thinking the count would be severed. Neither of these arguments is very convincing. 55 First, as the government points out, the district court's decision to deny defendant a continuance (here, in the form of a severance) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Peters, 15 F.3d 540, 545 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 219 (1994). Further, in order to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the defendant must ordinarily show prejudice. Id. West is simply unable to show how the government's short notice affected her defense in any adverse way. Count Six had merely been changed to allege $2,514.40 in installment payments instead of $1,600 in a down payment, and West already had all the financial documents relating to the Honda Civic in her possession. Of course, the government's correction of its mistake regarding the down payment may have damaged West's defense that the government had made such a mistake in the first place. But this has nothing to do with the poor timing of the government's amendment. It is significant also that the district court denied defendant's motion at the end of a 1 1/2-month trial. West effectively had more than just four days to prepare a new defense to the amended count; she had over six weeks, yet she did nothing to refute the government's case. Under the circumstances, and especially in light of the total absence of prejudice, it can hardly be suggested that the district court abused its discretion. 56 Second, to the extent that West relied on the district court's inclination to grant the motion, such reliance was unreasonable. The district court stated quite clearly that it was leaving room, albeit very little room, for the government to persuade it not to grant the motion. If West's lawyer refrained from preparing a defense on Count Six based on the district court's statements, then he would effectively have been gambling on the government's inability to present a compelling argument to resist the motion. This cannot be an acceptable excuse. West's attorney should not have stood silently by while the government presented its evidence on Count Six, if the only reason for so standing was that he was counting on a severance. Moreover, it is again significant that the district court denied the motion at the end of the trial, after having observed the entire case and having gotten a better idea of whether a severance/continuance on Count Six would have been of any use to West. There is no reversible error to be found here. 57