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 03-1167-12-PHX-DGC Plaintiff, v. Craig T. Kelly, Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER COUNTS AND DEFENDANTS

The United States, through counsel undersigned, hereby responds to defendant CRAIG T.

15 KELLY's Motion to Sever Counts and Defendants. Defendant KELLY has been properly joined 16 with the other defendants in this case. All of the defendants in the Second Superseding 17 Indictment, including this defendant, are members or associates of the criminal enterprise alleged 18 in Counts 1 and 2, the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club of Arizona (HAMC). All of the defendants 19 have participated in the criminal enterprise by committing predicate acts in furtherance of the 20 enterprise. As set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, defendant 21 KELLY has been properly joined in this case pursuant to Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of 22 Criminal Procedure. 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 1042

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 1042 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 1042 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 KELLY is charged in the Second Superseding Indictment with the following

7 charges: Count 5, a Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering ("VICAR"), as well as firearms 8 offenses (Counts 12-15). The Government will introduce evidence at trial that defendant 9 KELLY was the President of the Tucson chapter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club 10 ("HAMC") in Arizona, knew that the HAMC committed racketeering acts that affected interstate 11 commerce, and agreed that members of the HAMC would commit racketeering acts. The 12 agreement in that regard took place in Arizona, even though some of the racketeering acts did 13 not. All of the defendants in the Second Superseding Indictment, including defendant KELLY, 14 are members or associates of the criminal enterprise alleged in Counts 1 and 2, the Hells Angels 15 Motorcycle Club of Arizona. All of the defendants have participated in the criminal enterprise 16 by committing predicate acts in furtherance of the enterprise. 17 Some of the evidence that the United States will present at trial to show defendant

18 KELLY's involvement includes the following facts: 19 On September 18, 2002, the undercover operatives (UCs) arrived at the Waffle House at

20 I-10 and 22nd Street in Tucson, Az. They made phone contact with HAMC Tucson chapter 21 member CRAIG "Fang" KELLY, who CI 790 had previously talked with on September 17, 22 2002, and told to call KELLY on the 18th. KELLY provided directions to his home at 1501 23 South Winmore Street in Tucson, Arizona. KELLY told the UCs to come by at about 1:00 pm 24 this date. 25 The operatives did go to KELLY's home and stayed and talked with him for about an hour.

26 HAMC member Douglas Dam, aka "Dee" was with KELLY. Upon entering the home numerous 27 pieces of HAMC paraphernalia were seen, including photographs mounted on the walls, decals, 28 from various HAMC chapters around the world, as well as Dirty Dozen MC paraphernalia.

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1042 4 Filed 01/12/2006

Page 4 of 13

1

The operatives and CI 790 said they were interested in purchasing multiple firearms. They

2 were asked why they had not gone to the Red Devils, since they had previously been referred 3 to them. The CI said that Watkins had not returned their calls, and it was necessary to obtain 4 some firearms soon. Dam said they normally have "the stuff" but had been hit by the Feds about 5 two years ago and lost about 40 guns. Dam had suggested using a 3rd party contact, and a UC 6 let him know they had tried that in the past and not met with success. Dam and KELLY offered 7 to obtain percussion grenades, smoke grenades, handguns and assault rifles. Dam and KELLY 8 said they would arrange to meet with them in a few hours or days. KELLY stated that he has 9 a prior felony conviction, so he needs to be careful handling guns, because if he is caught he will 10 be sent to prison. A UC said that KELLY could just broker the deal and be paid a broker's fee. 11 While discussing the membership of HAMC in Tucson, KELLY stated that they (HAMC) were 12 looking at patching over six Tucson Red Devils MC members into the Tucson HAMC chapter. 13
On September 19, 2002, the UCs met Dam at the Waffle House in Tucson. Dam stated that

14 he had a .38 revolver and a .40 caliber pistol for the agents to buy. Dam stated that the .38 was 15 "clean," but the .40 caliber was not, so if UC's got caught with it to throw it away. Dam and the 16 UCs went to Dam's house and Dam showed the agents a .38 and 9mm. Dam wanted $250 for 17 the .38, but stated that the 9mm was not for sale because "the gun was used in a serious crime 18 and it needed to go in the river." Dam stated that the .40 was at a different location. The UCs 19 gave Dam $800 for the .38 and .40 and an additional $50 "commission." Dam gave the 20 operatives the .38 and then instructed the operatives to go back to KELLY's home to wait for 21 him to bring the second gun, a .40 caliber handgun. Upon their return to KELLY's home, Red 22 Devil MC Tucson chapter president Anthony Diego Cruze, met them at the front door. The 23 agents were invited into the home and directed back to the office area where KELLY was 24 located. KELLY said that he used to have a trophy room in which he had all the colors of clubs 25 that were not authorized by the Arizona HAMC. While talking among themselves, KELLY 26 called HAMC Tucson member Mark McPherson. 27 After about 45 minutes, Dam arrived and told the operatives they would have to pick up the

28 .40 caliber gun at McPherson's home. While leaving KELLY's home, a UC gave KELLY

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1042

5

Filed 01/12/2006

Page 5 of 13

1 $50.00 as a commission on the firearms transactions. In other conversation with Dam, he 2 admitted to using meth and said that he and KELLY had just purchased an eight ball in Phoenix 3 and split it. 4 On December 1, 2002, the UCs drove with Dam and Watkins to the Black Bear Restaurant

5 in Bullhead City for breakfast. While at the restaurant, Watkins said that he had been 6 interrogated about his association with HAMC, the Solos Angeles MC, Douglas Dam and the 7 UC. Watkins said the Tucson charter had an open invitation for the UCs to "come around," 8 which had been extended by defendant KELLY. Watkins said that he had been approached by 9 HAMC Tucson president KELLY to become a prospective member. Watkins was tasked with 10 soliciting the HAMC prospecting of the UCs by KELLY. 11 On December 9, 2002, the UCs met with HAMC Tucson charter member Douglas Dam at

12 Dam's place of business, a vehicle storage lot in Tucson, Arizona. After some general 13 discussion, the operatives were invited to follow Dam to the home of HAMC Tucson prospect 14 Henry Watkins. Upon their arrival Dam opened and entered a mobile mini storage container 15 located within the side yard of the residence. Dam told the operatives that HAMC Tucson 16 charter president KELLY had a key to the residence and lived nearby. During further 17 discussions between Dam and the operatives, Dam said that this transaction was separate than 18 the one being done with Watkins, although due to Watkins prospect status, Dam or KELLY must 19 approve of all of his transactions. 20 On December 21, 2002, CI 604 arrived at a bar in Tucson, Arizona, for the HAMC Tucson

21 support party for an HAMC member. A $100 donation was given to KELLY, since the member 22 was unable to attend the party due to poor health. During this party, KELLY and other HAMC 23 members were observed smoking marijuana and doing lines of meth in a protected area outside. 24 On December 23, 2002, CI 604 arrived at Dam's house in Tucson, Arizona. The CI and

25 Dam spoke briefly inside and then went outside to a shed behind the residence where the sale 26 of a .44 caliber revolver took place. During this transaction, Dam told CI 604 that KELLY had 27 recently run a dope load to Phoenix and that Dam hoped KELLY had some left over. 28
6 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1042 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 6 of 13

1

On February 1, 2003,at 3:45 a.m., the UCs met with Daniel Gutierrez at an undercover

2 residence controlled by the operatives in Phoenix, Arizona. Gutierrez delivered a firearm and 3 meth while armed with a handgun. Gutierrez delivered about a sixteenth of meth that he cut, 4 weighed and packaged in the presence of the operatives. The operatives paid Gutierrez $400 and 5 were told by him that HAMC Tucson members KELLY, Doug Dam, and Jo Jo Valenti control 6 him. Gutierrez said that he is not allowed to sell meth or firearms without the permission of the 7 HAMC Tucson members. 8 On February 1, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., defendant KELLY and others were involved in an assault

9 upon Daniel Gutierrez as outlined in Count 5 of the Second Superseding Indictment. This 10 assault was done in order to terminate Mr. Gutierrez's relationship with the Hells Angels 11 Motorcycle Club ("HAMC"). 12 On March 20, 2003, CI 604 had a conversation with Doug Dam, CRAIG KELLY and Hank

13 Watkins. KELLY inquired if it was his intention to come over to HAMC Tucson and that he 14 would need to prospect with HAMC Tucson, since that is where he lives and that Johnston did 15 not have any influence on where CI 604 would prospect. 16 On July 8, 2003, federal agents served search and arrest warrants at Craig KELLY's Tucson

17 address of 1501 South Winmore. KELLY was informed of his rights, stated he understood them 18 and commented that he is a convicted felon and knows that he is not suppose to possess guns. 19 KELLY's HAMC colors were located, along with numerous pieces of HAMC paraphernalia. 20 Two bags of marijuana were found underneath a tray in the office desk. 21 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 22 23 A. Joinder Generally Generally, persons indicted together should be tried together. United States v. Van

24 Cauwenberghe, 827 F.2d 424, 431 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Polizzi, 801 F.2d 1543, 1553 25 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Parker, 404 F.2d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 1968). The courts have 26 adopted this general rule because joinder serves the public interest in that it "expedites the 27 administration of justice, reduces the congestion of trial dockets, conserves judicial time, lessens 28 the burden upon citizens who must sacrifice both time and money to serve upon juries, and
7 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1042 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 7 of 13

1 avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses who would otherwise be called upon to testify only 2 once. United States v. Gaines, 563 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1977); Parker, 404 F.2d at 1196. 3 Joint trials promote efficiency and "serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and 4 inequity of inconsistent verdicts." Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993), quoting 5 from Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 209 (1987). For these reasons, the United States 6 Supreme Court has "repeatedly" approved of joint trials. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 537-538. 7 The test for severance is not simply whether prejudice exists from joinder, since some

8 prejudice is inherent in any joinder of defendants. United States v. Smith, 893 F.2d 1573, 1581 9 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Vaccaro, 816 F.2d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 1987) (if only "some" 10 prejudice was all that needed to be shown, few, if any, multiple trials could be held); Huddleston 11 v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988). "Thus a defendant must show `clear, manifest, or undue' 12 prejudice from a joint trial." Polizzi, 801 F.2d at 1554. Even if prejudice is shown, the Supreme 13 Court has held that Rule 14, Fed. R. Crim. P., leaves the tailoring of the relief to the district 14 court's sound discretion. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 538-39. Where there is a risk of prejudice, 15 measures less drastic than severance, such as limiting instructions, "often will suffice to cure any 16 risk of prejudice." Id. at 539. 17 18 B. The Joinder of Defendants is Proper in this Case Defendant KELLY is charged in Count 5 with VICAR. The racketeering enterprise is the

19 HAMC of Arizona, of which defendant KELLY is an admitted member. Rule 8(b) provides: 20 21 22 23 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 KELLY is alleged to have participated in the same acts or

24 series of acts as his codefendants. Probable cause supporting the allegations in Counts 5 and 1225 15 were found by a federal grand jury. Even though all of the defendants are not charged in each 26 count, it is not fatal to the joinder of defendants in this matter. Rule 8(b) specifically provides 27 that all defendants need not be charged in each count. Consequently, joinder of the defendant 28 with the other members of this racketeering enterprise is proper under Rule 8(b).
8 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1042 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 8 of 13

1

The requirements of Rule 8(b) are satisfied simply by establishing the existence of an

2 enterprise and by showing that each defendant participated in the same enterprise through the 3 commission of the charged predicate offenses. See, United States v. Persico, 621 F.Supp. 842, 4 850-855 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(In a prosecution of the Colombo Crime Family, a Rule 8(b) misjoinder 5 motion was denied, even though all the defendants were not named in every count of the 6 indictment, or in every predicate act, because the racketeering acts constituted a series of acts 7 or transactions sufficiently linked to permit joinder). 8 The Second Superseding Indictment satisfies the standards of Rule 8(b) because the

9 defendants participated in the same acts or transactions, or in the same series of acts or 10 transactions in this case. This entire case involves the criminal actions of HAMC members, and 11 the government expects the same witnesses to testify as to the same facts to establish the 12 enterprise if these were separate trials. "Where virtually all the evidence adduced at trial 13 concerns a common course of conduct during the transaction or event ... severance need not be 14 granted." United States v. Gibbs, 904 F.2d 52, 56 (D.C. Cir. 1990)(Joint trials may be preferred, 15 given the heavy and increasing criminal case load in our criminal courts). 16 17 C. The Evidence in a Separate Trial Would the Same as that in a Joint Trial To grant a separate trial for defendant KELLY would be to require the government to

18 present the same witnesses to testify about the same illegal acts in the creation and development 19 of the enterprise. In short, the government would be forced to retry the entire case. Such a result 20 is not warranted. See, e.g., United States v. Crespo de Llano, 838 F.2d 1006, 1020 (9th 21 Cir.1987) (refusal to sever trials of defendants was not an abuse of discretion where purportedly 22 prejudicial evidence would have been admissible against defendant to prove conspiracy charge); 23 See United States v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23, 27-28 (1st Cir. 1994) (severance not appropriate where 24 multiple trials would require "repetitive use of most of the same evidence and facts"). Any 25 potential prejudice to defendant can be remedied by this Court's careful instructions to the jury. 26 Defendant KELLY has failed to demonstrate potential prejudice sufficiently `substantial'

27 to justify severance contrary to the statutory preference for joint trials, or a gross unfairness such 28 as to deprive the defendants of a fair trial or due process of law. A joint trial of KELLY and the
9 Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1042 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 9 of 13

1 other defendants will serve the "vital role" which joint trials play in our system of justice. Zafiro, 2 506 U.S. at 537. A joint trial will promote efficiency because separate trials would require the 3 prosecution to present much of the same evidence surrounding the commission of the offenses 4 in two or three separate trials. A joint trial will also avoid the potential "scandal and inequity 5 of inconsistent verdicts" that can result from separate trials. A joint trial will enhance the ability 6 of the jury to discern the truth. 7 This case involves allegations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")

8 and Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering ("VICAR"). All the defendants in all of the counts 9 are charged with either RICO or VICAR. Both RICO and VICAR require proof that an 10 enterprise, the HAMC, exists and that the various criminal activities alleged in the indictment 11 were committed in furtherance of the HAMC. In separate trials, all of this evidence would have 12 to be presented repeatedly, including significant expert testimony regarding the nature, scope and 13 inner workings of the HAMC. In a joint trial, this evidence would be presented once. 14 Given that defendant KELLY is charged in Count 5 of the SSI, the government's evidence

15 showing the HAMC as a criminal enterprise would be admissible against the defendant in a 16 separate trial. In addition, the government would need to provide evidence that the enterprise 17 engaged in activities that affected interstate commerce. This proof would involve the

18 presentation of evidence relating to the actions of individual members of the enterprise, not just 19 the defendant. For example, the Laughlin case is relevant to the interstate nexus requirement 20 even if the defendant was not there. Again, the proof presented by the government will 21 necessarily involve the acts of other members of the HAMC, be it a separate trial or a joint trial. 22 Consequently, a separate trial of this defendant would not be appreciably shorter with respect 23 to the amount of evidence presented by the government. 24 25 D. Prejudice and Evidentiary Spillover The defense argues that this Court should sever defendant KELLY from the other defendants

26 because evidence of the other crimes has a prejudicial spillover effect. But to prevail, KELLY 27 must demonstrate that the evidence was so complicated or so overwhelming as to prevent the 28
10 Filed 01/12/2006

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1042

Page 10 of 13

1 jury from separating it and applying it only to those defendants against whom it was offered. 2 United States v. Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 533 (9th Cir. 1993). 3 In the government's view, KELLY was an important part of the conspiracy and this

4 enterprise. Despite the fact that KELLY was not present at the time of the Laughlin incident, 5 he is not divorced from the actions of coconspirators that are involved in murders and other 6 crimes. Here, the defendant is not a peripheral participant in the enterprise. KELLY was the 7 President of the Tucson chapter of HAMC. 8 A court is unlikely to determine that evidentiary "spillover" resulted in undue prejudice if

9 there is substantial independent evidence of guilt. United States v. Joetzki, 952 F.2d 1090, 10 1094-95 (9th Cir. 1991). And, absent dramatic disparity of evidence, any prejudice caused by 11 joinder is cured by instructing the jury to consider separately the evidence implicating each 12 defendant. Id.; See also United States v. Slade, 627 F.2d 293, 309 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Again, there 13 is independent evidence of KELLY's involvement in the enterprise. KELLY was the President 14 of the Tucson chapter of the HAMC. 15 Additionally, the concern of possible prejudice in this matter is outweighed by the need for

16 judicial efficiency, when much of the same evidence would be admissible against each defendant 17 in separate trials. United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004). The desire to prove 18 elements of RICO may require the admissibility of evidence of numerous and various criminal 19 acts by different participants, even though each defendant may justifiably assert that they had 20 no participation in specific acts. Id. at 1242. "Nevertheless, evidence of those acts is relevant 21 to the RICO charges against each defendant, and the claim that separate trials would eliminate 22 the so- called spillover prejudice is at least overstated if not entirely meritless." Id. 23 The Constitution does not require that, in a charge of group crime, a trial be free of any

24 prejudice, but only that the potential for transferability of guilt be minimized to the extent 25 possible. United States v. Le Compte, 599 F.2d 81, 83 (5th Cir. 1979). In the present case, the 26 jury will be instructed to consider each case separately, and it is presumed under the law, that 27 the jury will follow that instruction. Moreover, in United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 56728 69 (3rd Cir. 1991), the court rejected the defendant's claim of prejudicial joinder because the
11 Filed 01/12/2006

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1042

Page 11 of 13

1 codefendant was charged with a predicate act involving murder in which they had no knowledge 2 or involvement. In light of the foregoing, defendant KELLY's request for severance on the basis 3 of a perceived "rub-off" effect is not well taken. 4 Defendant KELLY has failed to demonstrate potential prejudice sufficiently `substantial'

5 to justify severance contrary to the statutory preference for joint trials, or a gross unfairness such 6 as to deprive the defendants of a fair trial or due process of law. A joint trial of KELLY and the 7 other defendants will serve the "vital role" which joint trials play in our system of justice. Zafiro, 8 506 U.S. at 537. A joint trial will promote efficiency because separate trials would require the 9 prosecution to present much of the same evidence surrounding the commission of the offenses 10 in two or three separate trials. A joint trial will also avoid the potential "scandal and inequity 11 of inconsistent verdicts" that can result from separate trials. A joint trial will enhance the ability 12 of the jury to discern the truth. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 The defendant has been charged with VICAR and other related crimes. The vast majority

15 of evidence will be identical against all of the defendants. A joint trial is appropriate and the risk 16 of prejudice can be mitigated. Accordingly, the United States requests that defendant KELLY's 17 Motion to Sever Counts and Defendants be denied. 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 1042

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 1042

Page 13 of 13