United States v. Walker - 657 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2011)

Rule:

Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b), it is not enough that defendants are involved in offenses of the same or similar character; there must exist a transactional nexus in that the defendants must have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, before joinder of defendants in a multiple-defendant trial is proper. Where charges leveled against only a single defendant arose directly from her participation in a common illicit enterprise which led to charges against that defendant and co-defendants, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that all of the charges may be considered part of the same series of acts, rendering joinder proper under Rule 8(b).

Facts:

Defendants Barron Walker and Barry Walker were each charged in a four-count indictment for possession of cocaine base. In a series of superseding indictments, the government filed several additional charges against the Walkers. Ultimately, both Walkers were charged with attempted robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count VI), and with using a firearm in furtherance of the robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count V), for their involvement in the attempted robbery of a crack cocaine dealer at gunpoint on May 31, 2007. Barry Walker, who was ordered detained by the federal magistrate judge following the attempted robbery, was also charged with escaping from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (Count VII). When Barry Walker was re-arrested while sitting in a car, the arresting officers recovered crack cocaine from his person; the car’s passenger admitted that Barry Walker entered the vehicle to sell him crack cocaine. As a result, Barry Walker was charged with an additional count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Subsequently, defendant Barron Walker filed a motion to sever for misjoinder based upon the escape charge and the additional drug charge against his brother Barry. The motion argued that joinder was improper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), and also argued, in the alternative, that even if joinder were proper, the district court should sever the trials pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 to prevent prejudice to Barron. The district court denied the motion, finding the joinder proper because the events of May 31, 2007, in which both Barron and Barry were alleged to have participated, were properly seen as a logical predicate to Barry’s alleged escape, and the escape, in turn, the culminating act in the same series of acts. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendants were found guilty of the crimes charged. On appeal, Barron claimed error in the denial of his motions to sever. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was joinder proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b)?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the decision of the district court, noting that Barry was evading prosecution for the other offenses charged and, were it not for those underlying offenses, he would not have been arrested and thus able to escape. An additional drug charge arose directly from the initial charges. The short span of time between the initial offenses and these additional charges were part of the same series of transactions, so defendants were properly joined pursuant to Rule 8(b). Furthermore, the court held that it was not abuse of discretion to deny the Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 motion to sever because the jurors could compartmentalize the escape evidence and the district court judge instructed the jury to consider each offense and each defendant separately.