Filed: Jun. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Brenda Charlestain's Memo of Supplemental Argument and Case Law in Support of Motion to Sever Counts [D.E. 90]. In her Memo, Defendant asserts that "the government has crafted an Indictment which could in essence force the defendant to take the Fifth Amendment before the jury on the two superseding counts, 9 and 10." D.E. 90 at 1. The Court understands Defendant to argue that she has "important testimony
Summary: ORDER ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Brenda Charlestain's Memo of Supplemental Argument and Case Law in Support of Motion to Sever Counts [D.E. 90]. In her Memo, Defendant asserts that "the government has crafted an Indictment which could in essence force the defendant to take the Fifth Amendment before the jury on the two superseding counts, 9 and 10." D.E. 90 at 1. The Court understands Defendant to argue that she has "important testimony t..
More
ORDER
ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Brenda Charlestain's Memo of Supplemental Argument and Case Law in Support of Motion to Sever Counts [D.E. 90]. In her Memo, Defendant asserts that "the government has crafted an Indictment which could in essence force the defendant to take the Fifth Amendment before the jury on the two superseding counts, 9 and 10." D.E. 90 at ¶ 1. The Court understands Defendant to argue that she has "important testimony to give concerning one count and [a] strong need to refrain from testifying on [another]." United States v. Benz, 740 F.2d 903, 911 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Forrest, 623 F.2d 1107, 1115 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 924 (1980) (citation omitted)) (internal quotation marks omitted). More specifically, the Court construes Defendant's Memo of Supplemental Authority to contend that she expects to testify on Counts 1 through 4 of the Superseding Indictment but wishes to remain silent on Counts 9 and 10 of the Superseding Indictment.
Defendant's Memo of Supplemental Argument, however, does "no more than express a generalized desire to testify as to some counts but not others. [She has] not indicated what [she] would have testified to, and whether such testimony would have been of any particular importance. . . ." United States v. Corbin, 734 F.2d 643, 649 (11th Cir. 1984). Under these circumstances, Defendant has not demonstrated the requisite "compelling prejudice" requiring severance. See id.
To avoid a situation where Defendant does not make the necessary showing until after trial has already begun, thereby possibly requiring a new trial, however, the Court directs Defendant to specify precisely what "important testimony" she has to give regarding Counts 1 through 4 and what her strong need to refrain from testimony on Counts 9 and 10 is, if she wishes to continue with her Motion to Sever. In this way, the Court can conduct the proper analysis under Rule 14. Defendant shall provide her response by Wednesday, June 13, 2012. Should the Government desire to respond, it may do so by Friday, June 15, 2012.
DONE AND ORDERED.
