Opinion ID: 739316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Shanklin and Myers

Text: 73 Shanklin and Myers complain that they were prejudiced by the evidence of Manges' cash payments to Jack Giberson. They assert, No limiting instruction would suffice to cure such prejudice. We disagree. The district court specifically instructed the jury to reach separate decisions on the guilt or innocence of each defendant, based on the evidence with respect to that defendant alone. 8 Cautionary instructions of precisely this sort have been held sufficient to cure any possibility of prejudice. McCord, 33 F.3d at 1452 (quoting Faulkner, 17 F.3d at 759). 74 Shanklin and Myers further claim that Manges was very unpopular in San Antonio, where the trial was held. But there is no hint in the record that Manges' reputation in the community resulted in any prejudice to his co-defendants. Shanklin and Myers derive this argument from the transcript of voir dire, in which several potential jurors admitting having formed unfavorable impressions of Manges. Having scoured the record, we are satisfied that the district court removed any potential jurors whose negative impressions of Manges might have colored their consideration of the evidence. 9 75 Shanklin also claims that he was prejudiced by being tried jointly with Myers, whose role in the scheme was far greater than his own. We have observed repeatedly that a quantitative disparity in the evidence is clearly insufficient in itself to justify severance. United States v. Pettigrew, 77 F.3d 1500 (5th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219, 228 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 934, 111 S.Ct. 2057, 114 L.Ed.2d 462 (1991). 76 The district court, through attentive management of voir dire and appropriate cautionary instructions to the jury, minimized any risk of undue prejudice to Shanklin and Myers. Shanklin and Myers have failed to show that they were prejudiced to such an extent that the district court could not provide adequate protection. McCord, 33 F.3d at 1452 (citation omitted). 10