Opinion ID: 754758
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendants Riley's and Key's Challenges to Their Joint Trial

Text: 21 Defendants Riley and Key assert that they were denied a fair trial because they were tried together with Defendant Kincaide. Both defendants Riley and Key submitted pre-trial motions for separate trials and argue on appeal the District Court erred in its decision to deny them. We review the District Court's decision for plain error because Riley and Key failed to renew their motions at the close of evidence. 3 See United States v. Anderson, 89 F.3d 1306, 1312 (6th Cir.1996). Under the plain error analysis, we will only correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'  United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). 22 Persons indicted together ordinarily should be tried together because there is almost always common evidence against the joined defendants that allows for the economy of a single trial. United States v. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053, 1067 (6th Cir.1993). Therefore, when defendants properly have been joined ..., a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 [of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence. Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). 23 In the instant case, both Key and Riley argue that the District Court should have predicted that defendant Kincaide's self-representation would cause disturbances at trial, and that these disturbances would cause them irreparable prejudice. In addition, Key argues that he was prejudiced by evidence of Kincaide's violent and deceptive conduct that was not relevant to his case. Their arguments are without merit. The indictment charged that defendants Key, Riley, and Kincaide conspired to distribute drugs and the record shows no evidence that could have caused impermissible prejudice and warranted separate trials. Although Kincaide conducted a rather bizarre cross-examination of Agent Lintner that resulted in the revocation of his self-representation, there was nothing inherently prejudicial in the content of his cross-examination. The District Court instructed the jury that the decision to revoke Kincaide's right of self-representation should not be considered by you as evidence of any kind and should not influence your decision in any way. The District Court committed no error when it denied Key's and Riley's motions for separate trials. 24 Key also challenges the failure of the District Court to grant a mistrial when it decided to terminate defendant Kincaide's self-representation. At trial, defendant Kincaide attempted to question Special Agent Lintner about examples of racism in United States history. After repeated objections to Kincaide's line of questioning, the court excused the jury and heard arguments regarding whether Kincaide should continue to represent himself. During this hearing, Kincaide had several vituperative outbursts and showed utter disrespect for the District Court. Before adjourning for the day, the District Court expressed concern that Kincaide's conduct could have a negative effect on his co-defendants' cases and indicated that it would reluctantly grant a motion for a mistrial from either defendant Key or Riley. The next morning, it decided to terminate Kincaide's self representation. Neither Key nor Riley moved for a mistrial: defendant Key told the court that he thought Kincaide should be allowed to represent himself, and Riley's counsel supplied the court with a curative instruction explaining that the jury should not consider the change in Kincaide's representation as evidence of wrongdoing by any of the defendants. 25 At closing arguments, Kincaide had another outburst, this time in front of the jury. The District Court quickly dismissed the jury and excused defendant Kincaide from the courtroom for the remainder of the day. When the jury returned, the court explained that Kincaide would watch the remainder of the proceedings from a different room via simultaneous broadcast. The District Court also instructed the jury that anything that you have heard or any of this action must not be considered by you in any way in making your decision of the guilt or innocence of any one of the three defendants. 26 Because defendant Key chose not to make a motion for a mistrial, we review the District Court's failure to grant a mistrial for plain error. See United States v. Cunningham, 804 F.2d 58, 63-64 (6th Cir.1986). As a general rule, a cautionary instruction advising the jury not to allow a disruptive co-defendant's behavior to [have an] impact [on] the decision regarding the other defendants affords sufficient protection against undue prejudice. United States v. Koskela, 86 F.3d 122, 125 (8th Cir.1996). The court's instruction to the jury sufficed to cure any prejudice that might have occurred as a result of defendant Kincaide's conduct. Moreover, a defendant has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal. Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689, 69 S.Ct. 834, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949); accord Harpster v. Ohio, 128 F.3d 322 (6th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1044, 140 L.Ed.2d 109 (1998). Therefore, in a case where a defendant does not move for a mistrial but one is granted, double jeopardy bars the retrial of the defendant unless the court granting the mistrial had manifest necessity. The Supreme Court has interpreted this standard to require a 'high degree' [of necessity] before concluding that a mistrial is appropriate. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 506, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). We find no error in the District Court's failure to order a mistrial. 27