Court Opinion

ID: 9497707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:57:56.354506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:21.897891
License: Public Domain

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority disregards relevant case law and compelling evidence establishing that-the district court abused its discretion in granting Tarango a new trial. A district court should grant severance to properly joined defendants “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 mak*676ing a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Joint trials not only promote judicial economy but serve the interests of justice by “avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts” and “enabling more accurate assessment of relative culpability — advantages which sometimes operate to the defendant’s benefit.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 209-10, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987); see also United States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407, 416 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Abner, 825 F.2d 835, 845 (5th Cir.1987).
The majority concludes that Tarango was prejudiced by the disparity in evidence presented against the two defendants and Patel’s noticeable absence from trial. Neither reason justifies a new trial. The majority emphasizes that only five of the fifty witnesses at trial testified directly about Tarango’s involvement in the health care fraud scheme. Some spillover effect, by itself, does not warrant severance. United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 287 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1085 (5th Cir.1987). This Court has repeatedly held that limiting instructions are the appropriate remedy to cure prejudice caused by evidence that is admissible against one codefendant. United States v. Peterson, 244 F.3d 385, 393 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219, 228-29 (5th Cir.1990) (holding that “severance is not required merely because the Government introduced evidence admissible only against individual co-defendants”); United States v. Merida, 765 F.2d 1205, 1219 (5th Cir.1985) (asserting that severance is not needed if “the jury could sort out the evidence reasonably and view each defendant and the evidence relating to that defendant separately”).
Moreover, much of the evidence presented in the joint trial is relevant background to establish the existence and workings of the fraud scheme. The district court found that only six of the witnesses gave testimony admissible solely against Patel. The Government convincingly argues that if forced to retry Tarango, it would have to engage in the costly endeavor of presenting nearly all of the evidence entered at the joint trial. Severance, “required on the basis of a disparity in the evidence only in the most extreme cases,” Rocha, 916 F.2d at 229, was inappropriate in this case.
The second rationale behind the majority’s affirmance is equally unpersuasive. In overstating the effect of Patel’s absence on Tarango’s trial, the majority relies on United States v. Davidson, 936 F.2d 856, 861 (6th Cir.1991). Davidson, however, is not “particularly instructive,” United States v. Tarango, 396 F.3d 666 (5th Cir.2004), because the defendants’ charges were not sufficiently related: the defendant tried in absentia was charged with ten counts, including tax evasion and filing false income tax returns, which were unrelated to the single narcotics conspiracy charge against Davidson. Davidson, 936 F.2d at 861. It is undisputed that Tarango and Patel were properly joined as defendants alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction. Fed.R.CRIM.P. 8(b). Neither Patel’s absence nor the varying amounts of evidence presented satisfy the “required showing of factually specific and compelling prejudice as a result of the joint trial” with an absent code-fendant to warrant a new trial. Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 904 (6th Cir.2000).
The district court is provided a degree of discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for severance or new trial. Overstating the effects of the disparity in *677evidence or Patel’s absence might not warrant reversing the district court’s opinion. However, clear evidence indicates that Tarango received a fair trial.1
First, the district court issued effective limiting instructions as' to both the evidence presented which was inadmissible against Tarango and Patel’s absence. There is a well-established presumption that juries are able to follow the court’s instructions and compartmentalize the evidence against each defendant. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540-41, 113 S.Ct. 933; Richardson, 481 U.S. at 211, 107 S.Ct. 1702; United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1430 (5th Cir.1995). Because severance of properly joined defendants is regarded as -a last resort, “less drastic measures, such así limiting instructions, often will suffice to" cure any risk of prejudice.” Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539,113 S.Ct. 933.
Second, the jury reached a split verdict, acquitting Tarango on the conspiracy charge. If the disparity in evidence or Patel’s flight “prevented] the jury.from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence,” id., the jury would have convicted Tarango on both counts. See Biega-nowski, 313 F.3d at 288 (finding that the acquittal of one codefendant on three of five counts and another codefendant on one count supported the conclusion that the jury properly segregated evidence).
Third, the jury’s verdict is supported by compelling evidence against Tarango. We have refused to find that a defendant has suffered prejudice from a joint trial when there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendant. United States v. Griffin, 324 F.3d 330, 364-65 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1036-37 (5th Cir.1996). The majority mischarac-terizes the evidence at trial by stating that “little testimony suggests that Tarango was aware that what she was doing was improper.” Tarango, 396 F.3d at 670. As Patel’s office manager, Tarango .received numerous notices of fraudulent, billings violations from the state of Texas. Several witnesses recounted discussing the clinic’s fraudulent practices with Tarango. One of these, Dr. Wasim Sheik received letters from Tarango warning him not to report his allegations to the authorities. Indeed, Tarango’s own testimony indicated an intent to defraud the government. She admitted that during a seven-month period, she billed insurance companies for appointments for more than twenty-four hours per day, seven days, a week. She conceded that there was no testing equipment in Patel’s office to perform the oxygen level tests indicated on the forms she submitted to the government. She stated that she did not collect copayments from patients and that she billed an insurance company for visits by Patel when he was in jail after being indicted. •
It is immaterial that witnesses testified that Tarango copied information provided to her by Alur onto the insurance forms, or that “little evidence was presented to show that Tarango was aware that the medical diagnoses or the reqdests for medical equipment contained in the billing statements were false.” Tarango, 396 F.3d at 674. “Because it is difficult to prove intent to defraud from direct evidence, a jury may consider circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and draw reasonable inferences therefrom.” United States v. Bailey, 327 F.3d 1131, 1140 (10th Cir.*6782003). The Government’s evidence, which undeniably established that Tarango was aware that the clinic was involved in questionable billing practices, provided the jury, at a minimum, compelling circumstantial evidence to convict Tarango of aiding or abetting a scheme to commit health care fraud.
I respectfully dissent from granting Tar-ango a new trial.

. Additionally, when a trial judge sets aside a jury verdict and orders a new trial, this Court’s “deference to him is in opposition to the deference due to the jury.” Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir.1982). We therefore engage in a more rigorous review of the district court’s decision to grant rather than deny a motion for a new trial. Id.; Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 586 (5th Cir.2003).