Appellate Law

CA1: joinder and inconsistent statements

By S. COTUS

US v. Richardson, No. 06-2506.  In this case, the First holds that the defendant wasn?t entitled to separate trials under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for different counts.  The First says something like, ?Sure, in most cases there will be garden-variety prejudice when counts are joined, but the defendant has to show that joinder will deprive of him of a fair trial.?  Citing United States v. Jordan, 112 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 1997), the First says that the defendant failed to show that he wasn?t put between a rock and a hard place in terms of deciding whether or not to testify, and he didn?t make a strong enough showing of ?evidentiary spillover? from one trial to the other (because some things that were admissible in one case wouldn?t be admissible in the other).  The District Court concluded that regardless of what the defendant had testified to, conduct in one trial would be relevant to show knowledge in the other trial.

The First goes on and on about curative instructions and how great they are, but nobody really takes that talk seriously. 

Regarding the admission of an admissible recording of a telephone conversation, for impeachment purposes, the First says that the material was conflicting, even if not unambiguously contradictory.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on February 08, 2008 (boomark / email).