Severance Motions - Detaching Yourself from Co-Defendants in a Federal Trial Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 14
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 permits a court to sever defendants or charges into separate trials when a joint proceeding would unfairly prejudice one of the parties.
In federal criminal cases involving multiple defendants, a severance motion can be one of the most important pretrial tools available.
Put simply, when a jury is likely to confuse evidence, transfer blame from one defendant to another, or become influenced by inflammatory allegations against a co-defendant, Rule 14 may provide a path to an independent trial.
What is a Severance Motion Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14?
Rule 14 permits a federal judge to order separate trials or provide other relief when a joint criminal trial would prejudice a defendant or the government.
The rule recognizes that although defendants are often charged together, fairness sometimes requires separating their cases.
Federal courts generally favor joint trials. This preference is especially strong in conspiracy prosecutions because prosecutors frequently argue that the evidence against all defendants arises from the same alleged scheme.
Despite this preference, severance remains available when the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the benefits of a joint proceeding. Examples include:
- A defendant is charged with a limited role in a large conspiracy
- A co-defendant has made statements that directly implicate another defendant
- Evidence against one defendant is overwhelming, while evidence against another is relatively weak
- One defendant intends to present a defense that conflicts with another defendant's position
- Certain evidence would be admissible against one defendant but inadmissible against another
In these situations, a jury may struggle to compartmentalize the evidence and evaluate each defendant independently, damaging individual defendants.
Why Are Defendants Often Tried Together in Federal Cases?
Federal prosecutors often prefer to try multiple defendants together, particularly in conspiracy cases under statutes such as: 18 U.S.C. § 371, wire fraud cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, mail fraud cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, healthcare fraud cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, and drug conspiracy prosecutions under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Joint trials promote efficiency and avoid repetitive proceedings. However, efficiency is not the only concern. Federal courts must also ensure that each defendant receives a fair trial under the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Why Can Joint Trials Create Serious Problems?
Federal prosecutors often present a case as a single narrative. In a multi-defendant prosecution, jurors may hear weeks or months of testimony, review thousands of documents, and examine extensive electronic communications.
The danger is that jurors may associate all defendants with the most damaging evidence introduced during the trial. Even if the evidence against a single defendant is comparatively modest, jurors may unconsciously group all defendants.
The sheer volume of evidence concerning the alleged leaders of the operation can influence how the jury views everyone seated at the counsel table.
This phenomenon is often referred to as "spillover prejudice." Rule 14 exists largely to address this concern.
When Are Federal Courts Most Likely to Grant Severance?
Federal judges do not grant severance merely because one defendant believes a separate trial would improve the chances of acquittal.
Instead, courts typically require a showing of actual and substantial prejudice. Some of the most common grounds include the following.
Is There a Risk of Guilt by Association?
This is one of the strongest arguments in support of severance. A defendant may have only a minor connection to the alleged criminal activity.
Yet if the government intends to introduce extensive evidence concerning violent acts, large financial losses, or highly damaging communications involving co-defendants, the jury may struggle to separate the evidence.
Are Co-Defendants Presenting Mutually Exclusive Defenses?
Severance may also be appropriate when defendants pursue conflicting defenses.
For example, Defendant A claims that Defendant B directed all relevant conduct and concealed key information. Defendant B argues that Defendant A acted independently and is solely responsible.
If acceptance of one defense necessarily requires rejection of the other, the court may determine that a joint trial creates an unacceptable risk of prejudice.
Does the Case Involve a Bruton Issue?
A major severance issue arises when a co-defendant has made statements that incriminate another defendant. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Bruton v. United States, admission of certain out-of-court statements can violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
Is There Evidence Admissible Against Only One Defendant?
Federal prosecutors may possess evidence that applies exclusively to a particular defendant. Examples include:
- Prior convictions
- Prior bad acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)
- Separate fraudulent transactions
- Unrelated criminal conduct
- Incriminating statements made by only one defendant
What Evidence Supports a Strong Severance Motion?
Federal judges typically expect more than generalized claims of unfairness. The most persuasive motions often rely on specific facts demonstrating how a joint trial would create prejudice. Evidence supporting severance may include:
- Charging documents showing dramatically different levels of alleged involvement
- Discovery materials revealing extensive evidence against only certain defendants
- Statements made by co-defendants
- Conflicting defense theories
- Complex evidentiary issues affecting only some defendants
- Expert analysis explaining the risk of jury confusion
Courts frequently analyze whether limiting instructions can adequately protect a defendant's rights. The stronger the showing that jurors cannot realistically separate the evidence, the stronger the severance argument becomes.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is a severance motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14?
A severance motion is a legal request made before trial, asking a federal judge to split defendants or charges into separate trials.
According to Rule 14, the court may approve an independent trial if conducting a joint trial would unfairly prejudice either the defendant or the government.
Why do federal prosecutors prefer joint trials?
Federal prosecutors mainly support joint trials to enhance efficiency and reduce redundant court processes.
This approach is especially common in complex conspiracy cases, where the government often claims that the evidence for all co-defendants comes from the same criminal scheme.
What is "spillover prejudice" in a multi-defendant trial?
Spillover prejudice happens when jurors see a large amount of damaging evidence mainly targeting the leaders of a criminal group.
This can cause jurors to unconsciously group all defendants together, assigning blame broadly and associating peripheral defendants with crimes they may have little or no involvement in.
What happens if the judge denies my severance motion?
If a severance motion is denied, the defense can still safeguard the defendant's rights during trial by requesting specific jury instructions, raising relevant evidentiary objections, and contesting unfair testimony.
Moreover, a denied motion keeps the issue available for appeal if the defendant is convicted.
Hypothetical Case Study: Separating a Peripheral Executive from a National Fraud Investigation
Federal prosecutors indicted twelve individuals in connection with an alleged nationwide procurement fraud scheme involving government contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
The indictment charges a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
One defendant is a regional executive who joined the company during the final six months of the alleged conspiracy. The government intends to introduce:
- Thousands of internal emails
- Financial records covering nearly a decade
- Testimony from cooperating witnesses
- Recordings involving other executives
- Evidence of lavish expenditures allegedly funded by fraud proceeds
Almost none of this evidence involves the regional executive. The prosecution argues that all defendants should be tried together because the charges arise from a common conspiracy.
Eisner Gorin LLP develops a detailed Rule 14 severance motion demonstrating that the vast majority of evidence concerns conduct predating the executive's employment.
The motion highlights that jurors would spend weeks hearing evidence about individuals and events having little connection to the executive.
The motion also identifies several cooperating witnesses whose testimony concerns only the alleged organizers of the scheme.
Additional briefing shows that certain financial evidence would be inadmissible in a separate trial against the executive.
After reviewing the record, the court concludes that the disparity in evidence creates a substantial risk of spillover prejudice and orders a separate trial.
In the subsequent proceeding, the jury evaluates only the evidence directly related to the executive rather than months of testimony concerning the broader investigation.
The narrower presentation fundamentally changes the factual issues placed before the jury.
Can Severance Affect Plea Negotiations and Trial Strategy?
Yes. Severance can influence the entire direction of a federal criminal case. Once defendants are separated, prosecutors may need to reevaluate witness schedules, evidentiary presentations, and overall trial strategy. Certain evidence may be less effective when presented outside the context of a larger-group prosecution.
Separate trials can also alter plea discussions. Defendants whose cases are no longer tied to multiple co-defendants may face different litigation timelines and strategic considerations.
What Happens if a Severance Motion is Denied?
Denial of a severance motion does not end the issue. Defense counsel may continue seeking protective measures throughout the proceedings, including limiting instructions, evidentiary objections, and challenges to the admission of specific testimony.
The issue may also be preserved for appellate review if a conviction is obtained and the defendant demonstrates that the joint trial resulted in substantial prejudice.
Eisner Gorin LLP can help you. Schedule your consultation by calling (818) 781-1570 or by using the contact form.