Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Bradley

September 1, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSEPH BRADLEY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Veronica L. Duffy United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SEVERANCE

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Joseph Bradley moved this court to sever the trial of his charges from that of his co-defendant. See Docket No. 63. The government resists the motion. This motion was referred for decision to this magistrate judge by the Chief District Court Judge, the Honorable Karen E. Schreier pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

FACTS

Mr. Bradley is charged in the indictment filed with the court on May 19, 2009, with the crimes of conspiracy to distribute cocaine (Count I), and distribution of cocaine (Count VI). See Docket No. 1. The cocaine conspiracy count is alleged to have been joined in by Mr. Bradley and his co-defendant, Ben Stockman, as well as other unnamed co-conspirators. The conspiracy is alleged to have taken place in the District of South Dakota and elsewhere.

The time frames alleged in the indictment are from October, 2005, through May 19, 2009, the date of the indictment, for the conspiracy count. The distribution count is alleged to have taken place in August, 2008, in Rapid City, South Dakota.

Mr. Bradley filed his motion for severance, seeking a separate trial from Ben Stockman. See Docket No. 63. The government filed a written response in resistance to Mr. Stockman's motion. See Docket No. 72.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Bradley argues that joinder of his case with that of Mr. Stockman's is improper under both Rule 8(b) and Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Each of these arguments is addressed in turn.

A. Joinder of These Defendants is Proper Under Rule 8(b)

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) provides as follows: Joinder of Defendants. The indictment or information may charge 2 or more defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses. The defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately. All defendants need not be charged in each count.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b). The court has no discretion to deny severance of defendants who are not properly joined under Rule 8(b). See United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647, 654 (8th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, 459 U.S. 1040 (1982). Misjoinder of defendants under Rule 8(b) is inherently prejudicial. Id. (citing United States v. Sanders, 563 F.2d 379, 382 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1023 (1967); United States v. Marionneaux, 514 F.2d 1244, 1248 (5th Cir. 1975); 8 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 8.04(2), at 14 (2d ed. 1981)). The propriety of joinder under Rule 8(b) must appear on the face of the indictment. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 655; Sanders, 563 F.2d at 382. The prerequisites for joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b) are to be liberally construed in favor of the defendant. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 655.

The court concludes that Mr. Stockman and Mr. Bradley are properly joined under Rule 8(b). Indeed, the propriety of joinder of these defendants under Rule 8(b) seems beyond question. "Rule 8(b) requires that there be some common activity involving all of the defendants which embraces all the charged offenses even though every defendant need not have participated in or be charged with each offense." Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 656. "In order to be part of the 'same series of acts or transactions,' acts must be part of one overall scheme about which all joined defendants knew and in which they all participated." Id. (citing United States v. McKuin, 434 F.2d 391, 395-396 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 911 (1971)). "Although a conspiracy count is not always essential for joinder of counts which do not all include every joined defendant, in the absence of such an allegation, other facts must be alleged which at least suggest the existence of an overall scheme encompassing all the defendants and all the charged offenses." Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 656-657.

Thus, the court rejects Mr. Bradley's argument that joinder is improper under Rule 8(b). Both Mr. Bradley and Mr. Stockman are alleged to have participated in the same exact drug conspiracy. Both, in separate counts, are alleged to have distributed cocaine in Rapid City, South ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.