Opinion ID: 576663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Severance and Order of Trials

Text: 6 Ramirez moved to sever his trial from that of Delores Erazo, stating that Delores's attorney had advised Ramirez's counsel that Delores were she called to testify in a separate trial in which her guilt were not an issue, would state that Mr. Ramirez was sent on an errand in her employ and that he had neither knowledge of the purported negotiations nor of the contents of the package contained in the boxes in the van. The motion stated that Delores Erazo was the only available source of this information. 7 The district court granted Ramirez's motion for severance, but tried him ahead of Delores. After the jury found Ramirez guilty, he moved for a new trial on the ground that the court's failure to try Delores first deprived him of material exculpatory evidence. The court denied this motion and later denied Ramirez's request to reconsider. In his motion to reconsider the motion for new trial, Ramirez included an unsworn statement of Delores describing Ramirez's innocent involvement in the crime and indicating her willingness to testify in his behalf. Delores, by this time, had reached a plea agreement with the Government. On appeal, Ramirez attacks the court's decision to try him ahead of Delores, the court's denial of a new trial, and its refusal to reconsider its rulings. 8 Ramirez argues that by trying him ahead of Delores and thereby thwarting the purpose of his severance, the court de facto denied his request to sever his trial from Delores's. See United States v. DiBernardo, 880 F.2d 1216, 1227 (11th Cir.1989). The Government asserts that the court granted severance because the Government was not prepared to try all of the co-defendants together. Both theories require us to treat the court's action as a denial of Ramirez's severance request. 9 A movant seeking severance must demonstrate: 1) a bona fide need for the testimony, 2) the substance of the desired testimony, 3) its exculpatory nature and effect, and 4) the willingness of the co-defendant to testify at a separate trial. United States v. Rice, 550 F.2d 1364, 1369 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 954, 98 S.Ct. 478, 479, 54 L.Ed.2d 312 (1977). After such a showing, the court must consider: 1) the significance of the alleged exculpatory testimony in relation to the defendant's theory of defense, 2) the extent to which the defendant might be prejudiced by the absence of the testimony, 3) judicial administration and economy, and 4) the timeliness of the motion. United States v. Butler, 611 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 830, 101 S.Ct. 97, 66 L.Ed.2d 35 (1980). We review the district court's decision to grant or deny severance for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1084 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 896, 108 S.Ct. 228, 229, 98 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987). 10 The Government does not dispute that Ramirez was in need of the alleged exculpatory evidence. Rather, it argues that Ramirez failed to show the district court both the substance of the testimony, and Delores's willingness to testify. We agree. Ramirez's motion for severance rested on an alleged agreement between counsel for Delores and counsel for Ramirez. It did not contain an affidavit from Delores herself. At the pretrial hearing, Delores's lawyer significantly undercut the persuasiveness of Ramirez's motion by stating that he could not assure the court that his client would testify to the extent that Ramirez had suggested. Also facing the court at the pretrial hearing, as an alternative to the postponement of Ramirez's trial, was the chance that the Government might grant Delores use immunity for her testimony. Confronted with this alternative and the uncertainty of Delores's testimony, the district court did not err in favoring the judicial economy of trying Ramirez first. 11 Similarly, the motion for new trial lacked any assurances that Delores would testify to the extent described by Ramirez. Though the chance that Delores might receive immunity no longer existed when Ramirez moved for a new trial, the court was within its discretion in denying the motion based on the uncertainty of the proposed testimony. 12 Ramirez's motion to reconsider was untimely filed, coming as it did, more than ten days after the court had denied Ramirez's new trial motion. See United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 982, 102 S.Ct. 2255, 72 L.Ed.2d 860 (1982). We have, on occasion, construed belated challenges to sentences filed pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as requests for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 (5th Cir.1983) (pro se litigant's ill styled Rule 35 pleading examined under section 2255). We do not believe the facts of this case warrant our extending Santora's rationale to untimely motions to reconsider new trial motions. Our decision, however, does not bar Ramirez from raising his claim in a separate section 2255 proceeding.