Opinion ID: 657113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Refusal to Sever the Defendant's Trial

Text: 20 The defendant next contends that the district court erred when it refused to grant a severance of her trial from that of her co-defendant, Rackstraw. As a general rule, we have held that persons charged with conspiracy should be tried together. United States v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428, 1447 (10th Cir.1987). Where the evidence overlaps, the offenses are similar and the operable events occurred within a relatively short span of time, joinder of defendants and offenses is proper. United States v. Esch, 832 F.2d 531, 538 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 908 (1988). 21 The decision whether to grant a severance is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge under Fed.R.Crim.P. 14 and we review that decision only for an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 667 (10th Cir.1989); Esch, 832 F.2d at 537. 6 To establish that the district court abused its discretion in refusing a severance, the defendant must show that she was actually prejudiced. United States v. Hack, 782 F.2d 862, 870 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 (1986). It is insufficient to allege merely that the defendant would have enjoyed a better chance of acquittal if she had been tried separately or that there was some spill-over effect from the evidence that was introduced against a co-defendant. Id. at 870. Cardall, 885 F.2d at 668. 22 The requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) were met here, and there is no showing of cognizable, actual prejudice to this defendant from the consolidation of her trial with that of Rackstraw. The court's instructions adequately admonished the jury not to consider evidence of other incidents allegedly involving Rackstraw against the defendant, and, indeed, the jury acquitted the defendant on the count that involved Rackstraw. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that jurors follow the court's instructions. United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 373, 381 (10th Cir.1986) cert. denied, 480 U.S. 908 (1987). We conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to grant a severance. 23