Criminal Procedure — severance

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — severance

It was not an abuse of discretion to consolidate for trial four counts of bank robbery and two counts of witness intimidation.

“Furthermore, the district court diminished any spillover prejudice by instructing the jury that ‘[e]ach count and the evidence relating to it should be considered separately.’ See Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539-41 (‘When the risk of prejudice is high, a district court is more likely to determine that separate trials are necessary, but… less drastic measures, such as limiting instructions, often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice … . “[J]uries are presumed to follow their instructions.”’ (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987))); Berg, 714 F.3d at 496 (‘Jury instructions can mitigate potential prejudice from trying multiple charges together … .’); United States v. Pacente, 503 F.2d 543, 548 (7th Cir. 1974) (observing that jury instructions directing separate consideration of counts are a ‘meaningful safeguard’ against a prejudicial spillover between counts). When the jury was in deliberations and became confused about the distinction between Counts Five and Six, it asked the court for clarification, which further demonstrates that the jury was following its instructions and compartmentalizing the issues in the various counts. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it denied Davis’s motion to sever.”

Affirmed.

12-2769 U.S. v. Davis

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Clevert, J., Manion, J.