U.S. v. CELEYA-TRONCOZA, CR-10-1126-PHX-GMS. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120120902
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Nina Celeya-Troncoza's Motion to Sever (Doc. 257). After having considered the motion, the government's response and the Defendant's reply, the motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal. The Court after assessing the superceding indictment as it now stands determines that Defendant has not been able to show sufficient prejudice to her case to justify a severance. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 ,
Summary: ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Nina Celeya-Troncoza's Motion to Sever (Doc. 257). After having considered the motion, the government's response and the Defendant's reply, the motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal. The Court after assessing the superceding indictment as it now stands determines that Defendant has not been able to show sufficient prejudice to her case to justify a severance. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 , 5..
More
ORDER
G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Nina Celeya-Troncoza's Motion to Sever (Doc. 257). After having considered the motion, the government's response and the Defendant's reply, the motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal.
The Court after assessing the superceding indictment as it now stands determines that Defendant has not been able to show sufficient prejudice to her case to justify a severance. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993). Further, the United States apparently can identify no co-defendants that have made any statements that would be admissible that the United States would attempt to admit as against the Defendant. While Defendant alleges generally that some of the co-defendants may have exculpatory information as to her and be prevented from presenting it due to their status as co-defendants, Defendant has been unable to date to present evidence that any co-defendant would make such statements.
Because it may be possible that a co-defendant can be identified who would make such a statement or other matters may make it clear that prejudice could result from trying all of the defendants on the superceding indictment, Defendant's motion is denied without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion to Sever (Doc. 257) without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
