Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona KEITH VERCAUTEREN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 013439 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, CR 03-1167-16-PHX-DGC Plaintiff, v. Robert McKay, Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER

The United States, through counsel undersigned, hereby responds to defendant ROBERT

15 McKAY's Motion to Sever. Defendant McKAY has been properly joined with the other 16 defendants in this case. All of the defendants in the Second Superseding Indictment, including 17 this defendant, are members or associates of the criminal enterprise alleged in Counts 1 and 2, 18 the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club of Arizona (HAMC). All of the defendants have participated 19 in the criminal enterprise by committing predicate acts in furtherance of the enterprise. As set 20 forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, defendant McKAY has been 21 properly joined in this case pursuant to Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted this 12th day of January, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona s/ Keith Vercauteren KEITH VERCAUTEREN Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1039

Filed 01/12/2006

Page 1 of 13

1 2 I. FACTS 3

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club ("HAMC") was formally organized in the State of

4 Arizona in 1997. The HAMC has grown to be the largest outlaw motorcycle gang in the world 5 and maintains chapters in 25 foreign countries. In the United States, the HAMC maintains over 6 50 chapters in 23 states. In Arizona, the HAMC maintains six (6) chapters which are located in 7 specific geographical regions, all of which are in the District of Arizona. The Arizona HAMC 8 chapters include the Mesa, Phoenix, Cave Creek, Skull Valley, Nomad and Tucson chapters. 9 The HAMC of Arizona is the "enterprise" alleged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Second

10 Superseding Indictment. Presidents and officers of the Arizona HAMC chapters maintain 11 frequent contact, including attending formal monthly meetings ("OMs") designed to facilitate 12 discussions and decisions concerning issues of statewide significance to the HAMC of Arizona. 13 At these OMs, the presidents and officers of the Arizona HAMC chapters routinely discuss illicit 14 activities, financial issues, organize events such as motorcycle runs, and issue collective 15 decisions concerning membership, and discipline of individual chapter members. In addition, 16 the statewide enterprise is expressly demonstrated by the "Arizona" rocker which is worn by 17 each member of the Arizona HAMC. With respect to decision making and the conduct of illegal 18 activities, the influence of the statewide Arizona HAMC enterprise is unique in comparison to 19 other HAMC state organizations because the HAMC of Arizona is the unqualified, dominant 20 Outlaw Motorcycle Gang (OMG) in Arizona. As a consequence of the HAMC's control over 21 Arizona, it is historically and effectively a one OMG state, and HAMC strives to maintain its 22 seemingly monopolistic control over their "territory." 23 The formal hierarchy of the Arizona HAMC is typical of other HAMC organizations. Each

24 HAMC chapter has a president, vice-president, secretary/treasurer, sergeant-at-arms, and security 25 officer who preside over the chapter members and prospective members. The Arizona HAMC 26 is part of the West Coast region, which is run by an executive body whose officers were elected 27 from the HAMC chapters in that region. Significant decisions affecting HAMC chapters are 28 made at regional, national, and international meetings.
2 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1039 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 2 of 13

1

The Arizona HAMC operates under HAMC bylaws which outline the rights and

2 responsibilities of its members. Common membership responsibilities include ownership of a 3 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, payment of membership dues, and attendance at weekly chapter 4 meetings (referred to as "church"). 5 Only "full-patched" members enjoy the privilege of displaying certain HAMC indicia of

6 membership, including patches, vests, the "red and white" colors, and tattoos with images, 7 colors, or lettering associated with the HAMC. For example, "full-patched" members of the 8 Arizona HAMC wear distinctive patches or colors on the back of leather or denim vests. The 9 center patch is the caricature of a skull with wings, known as the "Death Head." Above the 10 "Death Head" is the top rocker which consists of a white patch with "HELLS ANGELS" spelled 11 in large, red letters. Below the "Death Head" is the bottom rocker which consists of a white 12 patch with the word "Arizona" spelled in red letters. To the right of the "Death Head," members 13 wear a small white patch with the red letters "MC" for "motorcycle club." The Arizona HAMC 14 chapters are commonly referred to as the "red and white" because of the white patches with red 15 lettering. The patches and colors are property of each chapter, to be worn by HAMC members, 16 and are regarded by them to be sacred. 17 Arizona HAMC members also frequently wear a "1%" patch, in addition to the "Death

18 Head" patches, on the front of their vests to identify themselves as belonging to the 1% of the 19 motorcycling public who are not law-abiding citizens. Members also wear a patch with "AFFA" 20 lettering which stands for "Angels Forever, Forever Angels" and patches with the member's 21 moniker and/or chapter office. 22 The HAMC and the Mongols have engaged in violent confrontations for more than

23 25 years. In 1977, as a result of a disagreement concerning the lettering used on biker-related 24 motorcycle vests and jackets, members of the HAMC initiated a violent campaign against 25 the Mongols, which included murder. On April 27, 2002, during the Laughlin River Motorcycle 26 Run, in Laughlin, Nevada, members of the HAMC from various chapters, including the HAMC 27 of Arizona, entered Harrah's Casino in Laughlin, Nevada, and provoked a violent confrontation 28 with members of the Mongols. The fight quickly escalated from fists to knives and firearms.
3 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1039 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 3 of 13

1 The confrontation culminated in an exchange of gunfire inside the casino between members of 2 the HAMC and the Mongols. As a result, two HAMC members and one Mongol were killed and 3 over 14 others suffered injuries from gunfire, knives, and blunt force trauma. HAMC of Arizona 4 members and codefendants Smith, Walters, and Schaefer were directly involved in the Laughlin 5 incident. 6 Defendant McKay is charged in the Second Superseding Indictment with the following

7 charges: Count 6, Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering, Count 8, Violent Crime in Aid of 8 Racketeering, and Count 9, Threatening a Federal Officer. Counts 1 and 2 of the Second 9 Superseding Indictment charge members of HAMC of Arizona with violation of Racketeering 10 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO"). The Government will introduce evidence at 11 trial that defendant McKAY was a member of the Tucson chapter of the Hells Angels 12 Motorcycle Club ("HAMC") in Arizona, knew that the HAMC committed racketeering acts that 13 affected interstate commerce, and agreed that members of the HAMC would commit 14 racketeering acts. The agreement in that regard took place in Arizona, even though some of the 15 racketeering acts did not. All of the defendants in the Second Superseding Indictment, including 16 defendant McKAY, are members or associates of the criminal enterprise alleged in Counts 1 and 17 2, the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club of Arizona. All of the defendants have participated in the 18 criminal enterprise by committing predicate acts in furtherance of the enterprise. 19 Some of the evidence that the United States will present at trial to show defendant

20 McKAY's involvement includes the following facts: 21 On June 21, 2000, ROBERT McKAY engaged in an assault upon William Potter as outlined

22 in Count 6 of the Second Superseding Indictment. This assault was done in order to terminate 23 Mr. Potter's relationship with the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club ("HAMC"). Defendant 24 McKAY used a flashlight to beat Mr. Potter repeatedly, and Mr. Potter suffered significant 25 physical injuries. 26 On October 26, 2002, undercover operatives (UC's) attended the five year anniversary party

27 for the HAMC Mesa chapter, located at 153 South Lebaron in Mesa. Among the many members 28 present was defendant ROBERT McKAY, who had a non-association clause with HAMC
4 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1039 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 4 of 13

1 members as a term of his probation. A UC was introduced to McKAY, who was wearing a 2 disguise that included a gray wig and gray sideburns. McKAY requested that the UC meet with 3 him at his tattoo shop in Tucson in the future. 4 On February 17, 2003, agents met McKAY at the Black Rose Tattoo Shop in Tucson,

5 Arizona. McKAY discussed that the HAMC prospecting period is not designed to break the 6 prospects, but merely to get to know them. McKAY encouraged the UC's to prospect for 7 HAMC membership. McKAY said the "word is out" on the Solo Angeles members and they 8 are no longer unknown to law enforcement. McKAY mentioned that his no association clause 9 was no longer in effect and that he could also carry a firearm based on the reduction of pending 10 charges. 11 On March 12, 2003, the UCs met McKAY to complete a ruse debt collection orchestrated

12 by a UC. The ruse was established in a conversation with the UC and McKAY on February 9, 13 2003. In that discussion McKAY was told that the UC did debt collection for Nevada casinos 14 and McKAY asked the UC, "Ask your boss if he would like to put a Hells Angel on the payroll." 15 McKAY later told of an incident in which he "beat a motherfucker down the street" and was 16 arrested for assault. 17 In a conversation held between McKAY and the UC on March 10, 2003, the UC told

18 McKAY that he was attempting to collect a debt on a younger playboy type that had a gambling 19 debt in Las Vegas, but that he was often accompanied by bodyguards. In a follow-up discussion, 20 the UC told McKAY that the person had been lured by a female associate to Tucson the next 21 morning. The UC told McKAY that he did not have his regular debt collectors, and asked if he 22 wished to work.. McKAY was eager and said, "this will be a good chance for me," and agreed 23 to meet the UC at 11:00 a.m. the following morning at McKAY's tattoo parlor, the Black Rose. 24 The next day, McKAY, the UC, and two other UCs met at the Waffle House at 3080 West Grant 25 Road to complete the staged ruse. An agent, posing as the debtor, was contacted by the UC and 26 McKAY and the UC proceeded to collect an alleged $21,000 from the debtor in the form of a 27 check for $17,000, $300 in cash and a Sig Sauer 9 mm pistol. After completing the ruse, 28 McKAY was given $200 for his part.

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1039

5

Filed 01/12/2006

Page 5 of 13

1

On March 19, 2003, defendant ROBERT McKAY met with a UC and discussed the UC

2 seeking HAMC membership in Tucson. McKAY outlined general philosophies of HAMC 3 prospective membership including that he thought the UC was wearing the "wrong 4 patch"(Solo's) and that he thinks the UC would be a good HAMC member. McKAY said that 5 there is a $500 initiation fee and that HAMC has a one year prospect period, but that the UC 6 would have a short "hang around" time. The initiation fee is to pay for a background 7 investigation, but that in a smaller charter it is easier to be accepted since it must be by 8 unanimous vote and that is easier to get in a smaller membership. 9 On March 31, 2003, a UC and CI met with Jimmy McLean and Red Devils MC Prospect,

10 Fred LNU, in Tucson, Arizona. During their talks, McLean said that he owns Peppers Cantina 11 and that ROBERT McKAY had attempted to extort money from him on the HAMC's behalf 12 when he first obtained the business. McKAY told him that he would have to pay 10% of his 13 profits to the HAMC to remain in business, although he never did agree to pay the money. 14 On May 13, 2003, the UC met with McKAY at McKAY's business, the Black Rose Tattoo.

15 While driving to dinner, McKAY received a phone call on his cellular phone. McKAY told the 16 person on the other end of the line that he was pleased with the manner in which the situation 17 was dealt with. After completing the call, McKAY told the UC that the call was from a member 18 of the Devils Disciples MC, of which the UC knew a member had just been assaulted. McKAY 19 confirmed this, stating that the HAMC was going to conduct the assault, but that other Devils 20 Disciples had done it themselves. McKAY said the problem arose due to the Devils failing to 21 follow the advice of the HAMC and becoming heavily involved in narcotics trafficking. 22 McKAY then told the UC that he had an interest in assisting the UC in further debt collections 23 and suggested that the UC consider using a cattle prod during his debt collections to incapacitate 24 the victims. McKAY said he had recently "tazed" a person behind his building. 25 McKAY was indicted on November 18, 2003, for one count of VICAR. On December 3,

26 2003, ROBERT McKAY and others were arrested pursuant to federal arrest warrants for 27 indictments issued in Arizona and Nevada for various counts of VICAR and RICO. Defendant 28 McKAY was then released by the Court pending trial.

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1039

6

Filed 01/12/2006

Page 6 of 13

1

On August 31, 2004, defendant McKAY had contact with an agent working for the Bureau

2 of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") at a bar in Tucson, Arizona. Defendant 3 McKAY told the ATF agent that he knew who the ATF agent was and made various threats of 4 physical harm against the ATF agent. Defendant McKAY believed that this agent was an 5 undercover agent who worked this investigation and threatened to assault the agent for his 6 involvement in the investigation. McKAY told the agent, "You're going to spend the rest of 7 your life nervous. You're going to spend the rest of your life on the run from us. You're a 8 marked man." After another exchange between the two, McKAY said, "You need to watch 9 yourself. This is dangerous shit." McKAY then stepped back from the agent and began to walk 10 away. McKAY then turned over his shoulder and stated to the agent, "You're going to get hurt." 11 On September 1, 2004, the defendant was charged by complaint for threatening the ATF

12 agent, and defendant McKAY was detained pending trial. 13 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 14 15 A. Joinder Generally Generally, persons indicted together should be tried together. United States v. Van

16 Cauwenberghe, 827 F.2d 424, 431 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Polizzi, 801 F.2d 1543, 1553 17 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Parker, 404 F.2d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 1968). The courts have 18 adopted this general rule because joinder serves the public interest in that it "expedites the 19 administration of justice, reduces the congestion of trial dockets, conserves judicial time, lessens 20 the burden upon citizens who must sacrifice both time and money to serve upon juries, and 21 avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses who would otherwise be called upon to testify only 22 once. United States v. Gaines, 563 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1977); Parker, 404 F.2d at 1196. 23 Joint trials promote efficiency and "serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and 24 inequity of inconsistent verdicts." Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993), quoting 25 from Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 209 (1987). For these reasons, the United States 26 Supreme Court has "repeatedly" approved of joint trials. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 537-538. 27 The test for severance is not simply whether prejudice exists from joinder, since some

28 prejudice is inherent in any joinder of defendants. United States v. Smith, 893 F.2d 1573, 1581
7 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1039 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 7 of 13

1 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Vaccaro, 816 F.2d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 1987) (if only "some" 2 prejudice was all that needed to be shown, few, if any, multiple trials could be held); Huddleston 3 v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988). "Thus a defendant must show `clear, manifest, or undue' 4 prejudice from a joint trial." Polizzi, 801 F.2d at 1554. Even if prejudice is shown, the Supreme 5 Court has held that Rule 14, Fed. R. Crim. P., leaves the tailoring of the relief to the district 6 court's sound discretion. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 538-39. Where there is a risk of prejudice, 7 measures less drastic than severance, such as limiting instructions, "often will suffice to cure any 8 risk of prejudice." Id. at 539. 9 10 B. The Joinder of Defendants is Proper in this Case Defendant is charged in Counts 6 and 8 with Committing a Violent Act in Aid of

11 Racketeering. The racketeering enterprise is the HAMC of Arizona, of which defendant 12 McKAY is an admitted member. Rule 8(b) provides: 13 14 15 16 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. In the present case, defendant McKAY is alleged to have participated in the same acts or

17 series of acts as his codefendants. Probable cause supporting the allegations in Counts 6 and 8 18 were found by a federal grand jury. Even though all of the defendants are not charged in each 19 count, it is not fatal to the joinder of defendants in this matter. Rule 8(b) specifically provides 20 that all defendants need not be charged in each count. Consequently, joinder of the defendant 21 with the other members of this racketeering enterprise is proper under Rule 8(b). 22 The requirements of Rule 8(b) are satisfied simply by establishing the existence of an

23 enterprise and by showing that each defendant participated in the same enterprise through the 24 commission of the charged predicate offenses. See, United States v. Persico, 621 F.Supp. 842, 25 850-855 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(In a prosecution of the Colombo Crime Family, a Rule 8(b) misjoinder 26 motion was denied, even though all the defendants were not named in every count of the 27 indictment, or in every predicate act, because the racketeering acts constituted a series of acts 28 or transactions sufficiently linked to permit joinder).
8 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1039 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 8 of 13

1

The Second Superseding Indictment satisfies the standards of Rule 8(b) because the

2 defendants participated in the same acts or transactions, or in the same series of acts or 3 transactions in this case. This entire case involves the criminal actions of HAMC members, and 4 the government expects the same witnesses to testify as to the same facts to establish the 5 enterprise if these were separate trials. "Where virtually all the evidence adduced at trial 6 concerns a common course of conduct during the transaction or event ... severance need not be 7 granted." United States v. Gibbs, 904 F.2d 52, 56 (D.C. Cir. 1990)(Joint trials may be preferred, 8 given the heavy and increasing criminal case load in our criminal courts). 9 10 C. The Evidence in a Separate Trial Would the Same as that in a Joint Trial To grant a separate trial for defendant McKAY would be to require the government to

11 present the same witnesses to testify about the same illegal acts in the creation and development 12 of the enterprise. In short, the government would be forced to retry the entire case. Such a result 13 is not warranted. See, e.g., United States v. Crespo de Llano, 838 F.2d 1006, 1020 (9th 14 Cir.1987) (refusal to sever trials of defendants was not an abuse of discretion where purportedly 15 prejudicial evidence would have been admissible against defendant to prove conspiracy charge); 16 See United States v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23, 27-28 (1st Cir. 1994) (severance not appropriate where 17 multiple trials would require "repetitive use of most of the same evidence and facts"). Any 18 potential prejudice to defendant can be remedied by this Court's careful instructions to the jury. 19 Defendant McKAY has failed to demonstrate potential prejudice sufficiently `substantial'

20 to justify severance contrary to the statutory preference for joint trials, or a gross unfairness such 21 as to deprive the defendants of a fair trial or due process of law. A joint trial of McKAY and the 22 other defendants will serve the "vital role" which joint trials play in our system of justice. Zafiro, 23 506 U.S. at 537. A joint trial will promote efficiency because separate trials would require the 24 prosecution to present much of the same evidence surrounding the commission of the offenses 25 in two or three separate trials. A joint trial will also avoid the potential "scandal and inequity 26 of inconsistent verdicts" that can result from separate trials. A joint trial will enhance the ability 27 of the jury to discern the truth. 28
9 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1039 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 9 of 13

1

This case involves allegations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")

2 and Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering ("VICAR"). All the defendants in all of the counts 3 are charged with either RICO or VICAR. Both RICO and VICAR require proof that an 4 enterprise, the HAMC, exists and that the various criminal activities alleged in the indictment 5 were committed in furtherance of the HAMC. In separate trials, all of this evidence would have 6 to be presented repeatedly, including significant expert testimony regarding the nature, scope and 7 inner workings of the HAMC. In a joint trial, this evidence would be presented once. 8 Given that defendant McKAY is charged in Counts 6 and 8 of the SSI, the government's

9 evidence showing the HAMC as a criminal enterprise would be admissible against the defendant 10 in a separate trial. In addition, the government would need to provide evidence that the 11 enterprise engaged in activities that affected interstate commerce. This proof would involve the 12 presentation of evidence relating to the actions of individual members of the enterprise, not just 13 the defendant. For example, the Laughlin case is relevant to the interstate nexus requirement 14 even if the defendant was not there. Again, the proof presented by the government will 15 necessarily involve the acts of other members of the HAMC, be it a separate trial or a joint trial. 16 Consequently, a separate trial of this defendant would not be appreciably shorter with respect 17 to the amount of evidence presented by the government. 18 19 D. Prejudice and Evidentiary Spillover The defense argues that this Court should sever defendant McKAY from the other

20 defendants because evidence of the other crimes has a prejudicial spillover effect. But to prevail, 21 McKAY must demonstrate that the evidence was so complicated or so overwhelming as to 22 prevent the jury from separating it and applying it only to those defendants against whom it was 23 offered. United States v. Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 533 (9th Cir. 1993). 24 In the government's view, McKAY was an integral part of the conspiracy and this

25 enterprise. Despite the fact that McKAY was not present at the time of the Laughlin incident, 26 he is not divorced from the actions of coconspirators that are involved in murders and other 27 crimes. Here, the defendant is not a peripheral participant in the enterprise. McKAY was a 28 member of the Tucson chapter of HAMC. Defendant McKAY repeatedly beat William Potter
10 Filed 01/12/2006

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1039

Page 10 of 13

1 with a flashlight in order to terminate Mr. Potter's relationship with the Hells Angels Motorcycle 2 Club ("HAMC"). Defendant McKAY specifically threatened the main ATF agent that was 3 involved in the undercover operations of this investigation. Defendant McKAY told the ATF 4 agent that he knew who the ATF agent was and made various threats of physical harm against 5 the ATF agent for his involvement in the investigation. These threats were made on behalf of 6 HAMC and to further the interests and goals of the enterprise. 7 A court is unlikely to determine that evidentiary "spillover" resulted in undue prejudice

8 if there is substantial independent evidence of guilt. United States v. Joetzki, 952 F.2d 1090, 9 1094-95 (9th Cir. 1991). And, absent dramatic disparity of evidence, any prejudice caused by 10 joinder is cured by instructing the jury to consider separately the evidence implicating each 11 defendant. Id.; See also United States v. Slade, 627 F.2d 293, 309 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Again, there 12 is independent evidence of McKAY's involvement in the enterprise. McKAY was a member 13 of HAMC in the Tucson chapter. 14 Additionally, the concern of possible prejudice in this matter is outweighed by the need for

15 judicial efficiency, when much of the same evidence would be admissible against each defendant 16 in separate trials. United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004). The desire to prove 17 elements of RICO may require the admissibility of evidence of numerous and various criminal 18 acts by different participants, even though each defendant may justifiably assert that they had 19 no participation in specific acts. Id. at 1242. "Nevertheless, evidence of those acts is relevant 20 to the RICO charges against each defendant, and the claim that separate trials would eliminate 21 the so- called spillover prejudice is at least overstated if not entirely meritless." Id. 22 The Constitution does not require that, in a charge of group crime, a trial be free of any

23 prejudice, but only that the potential for transferability of guilt be minimized to the extent 24 possible. United States v. Le Compte, 599 F.2d 81, 83 (5th Cir. 1979). In the present case, the 25 jury will be instructed to consider each case separately, and it is presumed under the law, that 26 the jury will follow that instruction. Moreover, in United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 56727 69 (3rd Cir. 1991), the court rejected the defendant's claim of prejudicial joinder because the 28 codefendant was charged with a predicate act involving murder in which they had no knowledge
11 Filed 01/12/2006

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1039

Page 11 of 13

1 or involvement. In light of the foregoing, defendant McKAY's request for severance on the 2 basis of a perceived "rub-off" effect is not well taken. 3 Defendant McKAY has failed to demonstrate potential prejudice sufficiently `substantial'

4 to justify severance contrary to the statutory preference for joint trials, or a gross unfairness such 5 as to deprive the defendants of a fair trial or due process of law. A joint trial of McKAY and the 6 other defendants will serve the "vital role" which joint trials play in our system of justice. Zafiro, 7 506 U.S. at 537. A joint trial will promote efficiency because separate trials would require the 8 prosecution to present much of the same evidence surrounding the commission of the offenses 9 in two or three separate trials. A joint trial will also avoid the potential "scandal and inequity 10 of inconsistent verdicts" that can result from separate trials. A joint trial will enhance the ability 11 of the jury to discern the truth. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 The defendants have been charged with RICO, VICAR and other related crimes. The vast

14 majority of evidence will be identical against all of these defendants. A joint trial is appropriate 15 and the risk of prejudice can be mitigated. Accordingly, the United States requests that 16 defendant McKAY's Motion to Sever be denied. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
12 Filed 01/12/2006

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of January, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona s/ Keith Vercauteren KEITH VERCAUTEREN Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1039

Page 12 of 13

1 I hereby certify that on January 12, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached 2 document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and 3 transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 4 Joseph E. Abodeely, [email protected], [email protected] 5 David Zeltner Chesnoff, [email protected] 6 Carmen Lynne Fischer, [email protected], [email protected] 7 Patricia Ann Gitre, [email protected], [email protected] 8 Alan Richard Hock, [email protected] 9 Thomas M Hoidal, [email protected], [email protected] 10 Barbara Lynn Hull, [email protected] 11 12 David M Ochoa, [email protected] 13 Jose S Padilla, [email protected], [email protected] 14 Mark A Paige, [email protected] 15 James Sun Park, [email protected], [email protected],[email protected] 16 C Kenneth Ray, II, [email protected] 17 Brian Fredrick Russo, [email protected], [email protected] 18 Michael Shay Ryan, [email protected], [email protected] 19 Philip A Seplow, [email protected], [email protected] 20 Robert Storrs, [email protected], [email protected] 21 22 s/ Keith Vercauteren Keith Vercauteren 23 24 25 26 27 28
13 Filed 01/12/2006

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1039

Page 13 of 13