DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 9 of 19 counts alleging false statements to IRS agent from separate corruption counts due to “speculative nature of the link” between the structuring and corruption offenses); United States v. Mitan, No. CRIM.A 08-760-01, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) (joinder improper where alleged perjury did not arise from same transaction or comprise part of common plan with fraud counts in indictment). If one or more counts are improperly joined in an indictment, the court must sever the misjoined counts. United States v. Bradford, 487 F. Supp. 1093, 1097 & n.5 (D. Conn. 1980) (“The remedy for the misjoinder is the severance of the misjoined count.”) (citing United States v. Jackson, 562 F.2d 789, 797 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1977)); United States v. Winchester, 407 F. Supp. 261 (D. Del. 1975) (a finding of misjoinder requires the court to sever the offenses as a matter of course “without regard to the merits of defendant’s claims of prejudice” under Rule 14). B. Severance of Offenses Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 provides, in relevant part, (a) Relief. If the joinder of offenses ... appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants’ trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires. Rule 14(a) allows a district court to grant severance even if joinder is proper under Rule 8. United States v. Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d 395, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Turoff, 853 F.2d at 1043). To prevail on a motion to sever, a defendant must show that failure to sever will cause “substantial prejudice.” United States v. Ramos, No. 06 Cr. 172 (LTS), 2009 WL 1619912, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2009) (citing United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004)). The prejudice must be “sufficiently severe to outweigh the judicial economy that would be realized by avoiding multiple lengthy trials.” United States v. Walker, 142 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 1998). DOJ-OGR-00002287