Opinion ID: 2974395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Herron’s Motions to Sever the Counts

Text: Herron appeals the district court’s decision to deny his motion to sever the charges against him. This Court reviews a denial from a motion for severance under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Tran, 433 F.3d 472, 477 (6th Cir. 2006). Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states: “If the joinder of offenses or defendants in an indictment, an information or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants’ trials or provide any other relief that justice requires.” Herron argues that he was prejudiced by the No. 05-6061 United States v. Herron Page 6 inclusion of the felon in possession of a firearm charge, the witness tampering charge, and the escape charge, which inflamed the jury. The grant or denial of a motion for severance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose “determination in this area is thus entitled to great deference.” United States v. Breinig, 70 F.3d 850, 853 (6th Cir. 1995). Therefore, this Court will overturn such a decision only where there has been a clear abuse of such discretion. United States v. Elder, 90 F.3d 1110, 1118 (6th Cir. 1996). It is not clear whether evidence of Herron’s escape and assault would have been admissible at his bank robbery trial even if the charges had been severed. See United States v. Touchstone, 726 F.2d 1116, 1119 (6th Cir. 1984) (“flight is generally admissible as evidence of guilt, and . . . juries are given the power to determine how much weight should be given to such evidence”). Although evidence of flight can be admissible in some cases, this court has imposed a temporal limitation on its use. The immediacy requirement [of flight evidence] is important. It is the instinctive or impulsive character of the defendant’s behavior, like flinching, that indicates fear of apprehension and gives evidence of flight such trustworthiness as it possesses. The more remote in time the alleged flight is from the commission or accusation of an offense, the greater the likelihood that it resulted from something other than feelings of guilt concerning that offense. Id. (citations omitted). In Touchstone, the defendants fled on the third day of their trial. Id. Therefore, whether or not Herron’s escape would be admissible at his bank robbery trials, if they were severed, is unclear in this Circuit given Herron’s escape took place almost five months after No. 05-6061 United States v. Herron Page 7 being indicted with the crimes. The immediacy requirement would have been a difficult one to prove to allow such evidence into the bank robbery trial. Even so, the district court’s denial of Herron’s motion for severance is a somewhat different question. “[T]o prevail on a motion for severance, a defendant must show compelling, specific, and actual prejudice from a court’s refusal to grant the motion to sever.” United States v. Saadey, 393 F.3d 669, 678 (6th Cir. 2005). Herron has proven that this joinder did prejudice him by allowing the jury to assume guilt based on the presence of the escape charge as to the bank robberies and vice versa. However, our inquiry into this joinder of charges does not end here. “Review of errors involving misjoinder is subject to the harmless error provision of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a).” United States v. Chavis, 296 F.3d 450, 461 (6th Cir. 2002). “[A]n error involving misjoinder affects substantial rights and requires reversal only if the misjoinder results in actual prejudice because it had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Id. (quoting from United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 (1986)). One of the means that a misjoinder may be harmless error is through overwhelming evidence of guilt. Id. In this case, there was substantial evidence of Herron’s guilt on both the bank robbery charges and the escape-related charges, including the five witnesses who testified to Herron’s confessing to them that he committed the bank robberies, clothing worn by the robber and the bank bag were found in Herron’s residence, the gun was found within the bank bag, and finally, testimony of Herron’s escape and subsequent capture from the federal officers who apprehended him. In light of this overwhelming evidence, we find the district court’s decision to not sever the counts to be harmless error and affirm Herron’s conviction. No. 05-6061 United States v. Herron Page 8