Opinion ID: 778482
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compartmentalization of Evidence

Text: 33 Defendants' final argument in favor of severance is that the sheer size of the trial was manifestly prejudicial because it left the jury unable to compartmentalize the evidence — that is, to determine which evidence applied to which defendant, and thereby return a reliable verdict of guilt or innocence. In support of this argument, Defendants point to the length of the trial (17 weeks); the multiplicity of parties and counts; the large number of limiting instructions that were used to designate which pieces of evidence were applicable to which defendants; and, perhaps most importantly, the fact that the jury brought back guilty verdicts on all counts against all six of them. See United States v. Unruh, 855 F.2d 1363, 1374 (9th Cir.1987) (stating that [t]he best evidence of [a] jury's ability to compartmentalize the evidence is its failure to convict all defendants on all counts). 34 It is beyond dispute that the proceedings in this case were lengthy and complex. However, any prejudice that might have stemmed from the complexity of the trial was avoided by the district court's skillful handling of the case. Throughout the trial, the district court regularly conducted hearings and bench conferences to efficiently regulate the flow of evidence to the jury. Whenever requested and appropriate, limiting instructions were provided to focus the jury's attention on the defendant(s) to which a particular piece of evidence applied. At the end of the trial, the court lifted the vast majority of these instructions (principally those relating to trial exhibits), and clearly identified for the jury those instructions that remained. 8 In addition, during the jury charge, the district court provided clear guidance on the government's burden of proof, and stressed to the jury that it was to give separate consideration as to each defendant and that it must determine what the evidence in the case shows with respect to each defendant, leaving out of consideration any evidence admitted solely against some other defendants. Finally, the court reminded the jury that [t]he fact that you may find one of the defendants guilty or not guilty should not control your verdict as to any other defendants. Under these circumstances, that the jury returned a guilty verdict as to each defendant does not suggest to us a failure to compartmentalize. Rather, it suggests that the jury found sufficient evidence to convict each defendant. 9 35 On the basis of the district court's instructions, and basic conduct of the trial, we reject Defendants' claim that the complexity arising out of their joint trial was manifestly prejudicial. Thus, we affirm the district court's denial of their motions to sever.