Opinion ID: 171959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Joinder of Mr. Caldwell to Other Codefendants

Text: Before trial Mr. Caldwell filed a motion contending that the indictment improperly joined the charges against him with the charges against his codefendants. The district court denied the motion and Mr. Caldwell challenges the ruling on appeal. We review questions of joinder de novo. See United States v. Colonna, 360 F.3d 1169, 1177 (10th Cir.2004). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure encourage joinder of defendants. Rule 8(b) states: The indictment or information may charge 2 or more defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses. The defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately. All defendants need not be charged in each count. We construe Rule 8 broadly to allow liberal joinder to enhance the efficiency of the judicial system. United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 1997). Ultimately, [t]he test for a proper joinder is a common thread to each of the defendants, which may be established by common evidence as to various counts. United States v. Rogers, 921 F.2d 975, 984 (10th Cir.1990). Joinder of Mr. Caldwell was undoubtedly proper in this case. There were a number of common threads and much common evidence connecting offenses charged in the indictment. For example, (1) Brandon Baum acted as the real-estate agent for each purchaser and arranged a down-payment loan to the purchaser that was not disclosed to the mortgage lender; and (2) the actual sales price of each home was inflated in the purchase agreement submitted to the lender by use of an undisclosed addendum for nonexistent repairs or remodeling. Mr. Caldwell argues that because no conspiracy was charged, the only way to satisfy Rule 8(b) was for Mr. Caldwell to have participated in `the same series of acts or transactions' that make up the fourteen counts of this Indictment, not just the three that he was charged with. Corrected Aplt. Br. at 17. But Rule 8(b) states, All defendants need not be charged in each count. Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b). We have not conditioned joinder in nonconspiracy cases on all defendants' being charged in every count. See, e.g., United States v. Esch, 832 F.2d 531, 533-34, 537-38 (10th Cir.1987) (joinder upheld when three defendants were all charged with multiple counts of sexual exploitation of children, but only one defendant was charged with mailing the photographs). We affirm the joinder of all counts.