Opinion ID: 12937
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Mulderig’s Motion for Severance

Text: Mulderig asserts that the district court erred in denying his severance motion because of an alleged “spillover” effect that purportedly occurred through the introduction of numerous civil violations committed by his codefendants. We review the denial of a motion for severance for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1572 (5th Cir. 1994). Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes joinder of defendants “if they are alleged to have participated in the same . . . series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.” See United States v. Coppola, 788 F.2d 303, 306 (5th Cir. 1986). We have held that “[i]f defendants have been properly joined, the district court should grant a severance 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 determination of guilt or innocence.” United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d at 1572. “[T]he mere presence of a spillover effect,” we have reasoned, “does not ordinarily warrant a severance.” United States v. Sparks, 2 F.3d 574, 583 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1080 (1994). We have reviewed the record and perceive no evidentiary basis for Mulderig’s conclusion that damaging evidence presented against the Mmahats prevented t he jury from making a reliable determination of Mulderig’s guilt. Because Mulderig was an outsider to the bank, evidence of internal acts of deception could not have implicated Mulderig, especially because (1) Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 of the indictment required a finding of intent on Mulderig’s part, (2) Mulderig was the only person charged in Count 2, and (3) the jury was instructed to give separate, individual consideration to the charges against each defendant. There was no abuse of discretion. 8