U.S. v. MORGOVSKY, 16-cr-00411-VC. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171113f12
Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 10, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEVER UNDER RULE 8 AND RULE 14 Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 104 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . 1. The motion to sever Count 6 from Count 9 is granted for the reasons discussed at the November 8, 2017 hearing. See United States v. Jawara , 474 F.3d 565 , 578-79 (9th Cir. 2007). 2. The court's tentative opinion is that it should deny without prejudice Irina Morgovsky's motion to sever her trial on Count 9 from the trial of Naum Morgovksky on the export counts, and allow Iri
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEVER UNDER RULE 8 AND RULE 14 Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 104 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . 1. The motion to sever Count 6 from Count 9 is granted for the reasons discussed at the November 8, 2017 hearing. See United States v. Jawara , 474 F.3d 565 , 578-79 (9th Cir. 2007). 2. The court's tentative opinion is that it should deny without prejudice Irina Morgovsky's motion to sever her trial on Count 9 from the trial of Naum Morgovksky on the export counts, and allow Irin..
More
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEVER UNDER RULE 8 AND RULE 14
Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 104
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
1. The motion to sever Count 6 from Count 9 is granted for the reasons discussed at the November 8, 2017 hearing. See United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 578-79 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. The court's tentative opinion is that it should deny without prejudice Irina Morgovsky's motion to sever her trial on Count 9 from the trial of Naum Morgovksky on the export counts, and allow Irina Morgovsky to renew her motion at the close of evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 277 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Free, 841 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1988) ("A timely-renewed motion enables the trial court to assess whether a joinder is prejudicial at a time when the evidence is fully developed."); Williamson v. United States, 310 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1962). But as discussed at the hearing, the parties may address whether this plan is appropriate under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause in the letter briefs due on November 15. See United States v. Mallah, 503 F.2d 971, 989 (2d Cir. 1974).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
