U.S. v. Thompson, 19-00014-KD-B. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20190326704
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE , Chief District Judge . This action is before the Court on Defendant James Joel Harrison Thompson's Motion to Sever pursuant to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the response filed by the United States (docs. 66, 76). Thompson and four co-defendants are charged in a twenty-one count Indictment (doc. 1). In Count 2, the only count against Thompson, he and David Neil Faircloth, Jr., are charged with knowingly and intentionally possessing with inte
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE , Chief District Judge . This action is before the Court on Defendant James Joel Harrison Thompson's Motion to Sever pursuant to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the response filed by the United States (docs. 66, 76). Thompson and four co-defendants are charged in a twenty-one count Indictment (doc. 1). In Count 2, the only count against Thompson, he and David Neil Faircloth, Jr., are charged with knowingly and intentionally possessing with inten..
More
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, Chief District Judge.
This action is before the Court on Defendant James Joel Harrison Thompson's Motion to Sever pursuant to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the response filed by the United States (docs. 66, 76).
Thompson and four co-defendants are charged in a twenty-one count Indictment (doc. 1). In Count 2, the only count against Thompson, he and David Neil Faircloth, Jr., are charged with knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute approximately .82 grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectible amount of heroin on or about April 11, 2017.
Thompson argues that severance is appropriate because of the prejudicial spillover effect if he is tried with his co-defendants in this multi-count, multi-defendant action that encompasses many instances of conduct by the four other defendants over a period of time. The United States responds that some bias is inherent in any joint trial, but Thompson fails to show a specific and compelling prejudice that outweighs the interests of justice in trying defendants together and the public interests in judicial efficiency and economy.
Upon consideration, the Court adopts the United States' arguments found on pages two through four of the response as the reasoning of the Court. Accordingly, the motion to sever (doc. 66) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
