Opinion ID: 751894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the district court properly deny Sehorn's motion for severance?

Text: 62 Appellant Sehorn claims that there was prejudicial spillover because the government presented testimony and evidence of the August 12, 1992, robbery in San Diego, in addition to the later Tualatin robbery, neither of which involved Sehorn. The district court denied Sehorn's severance motions. 63 A district court's denial of a motion for severance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Atcheson, 94 F.3d at 1244. The test for abuse of discretion by the district court is whether a joint trial was so manifestly prejudicial as to require the trial judge to exercise his discretion in but one way, by ordering a separate trial. Id. (citation omitted). Furthermore, [d]efendants must meet a heavy burden to show such an abuse, and the trial judge's decision will seldom be disturbed. United States v. Ponce, 51 F.3d 820, 831 (9th Cir.1995) (citation omitted). 64 The Supreme Court has held that the risk of prejudice posed by joint trials can be cured by proper jury instructions. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540-41, 113 S.Ct. 933, 938-39, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Moreover, [a] defendant seeking severance based on the 'spillover' effect of evidence admitted against a co-defendant must also demonstrate the insufficiency of limiting instructions given by the judge. United States v. Joetzki, 952 F.2d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir.1991) (citation omitted). 65 Here, the district judge gave repeated instructions regarding the fact that Sehorn was charged in connection with the July 11 robbery only. The district judge twice instructed the jury that a separate crime was charged in each count and that the jury must decide each count separately. Sehorn fails to demonstrate how these jury instructions were inadequate. The jury was able to separate the two robberies with respect to Nelson, acquitting Nelson of the July 11 robbery. We see no reason why the jury could not also separate the robberies with respect to Sehorn. 11 66 Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sehorn's motion to sever. 67