“Mr. Quilling argues that he was unduly prejudiced because the Government argued, and the jury possibly inferred, that Mr. Quilling possessed the gun because he possessed the bullets and vice versa. However, ‘”prejudice requiring severance is not shown if evidence on the severed counts would be admissible in the trial of the remaining counts.”‘ United States v. Windom, 19 F.3d 1190, 1198 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Rogers, 475 F.2d 821, 828 (7th Cir. 1973)). In this case, some of the evidence from each count likely would have been admissible in the other trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Because the evidence likely would be admissible, Mr. Quilling has failed to show that the denial of severance caused actual prejudice.”
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Mills, J., Ripple, J.