U.S. v. Saget

• Decision Date: 26 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. 91-9098,91-9098
• Citation: 991 F.2d 702
• Parties: 37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 643 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Willis SAGET, Julius Phillip Hall, Herbert Nathaniel Johnson, Lamar Roberson, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 702

991 F.2d 702

37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 643

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Willis SAGET, Julius Phillip Hall, Herbert Nathaniel Johnson, Lamar Roberson, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 91-9098.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

May 26, 1993.

Jan R. Gilbert, Savannah, GA, for James W. Saget.

David Roberson, Savannah, GA, for Juluis P. Hall.

Howard E. Spiva, Savannah, GA, for Herbert N. Johnson.

Brent J. Savage, Adams, Gardner, Ellis & Inglesby, Savannah, GA, for Lamar Roberson.

Thomas A. Withers, Asst. U.S. Atty., Savannah, GA, David T. Shelledy, Thomas E. Booth, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Crim. Div., Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for U.S.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Before COX and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

Appellants were tried and convicted by a jury on charges stemming from a fifteen-count indictment handed down by a grand jury. Appellants raise numerous issues on appeal, including insufficiency of the evidence, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and improper sentencing. We find these contentions to be without merit and AFFIRM the convictions of each appellant on all counts.

I. BACKGROUND

A grand jury returned a fifteen-count indictment against James Willis Saget, Julius Phillip Hall, Herbert Nathaniel Johnson, Lamar Roberson and two other defendants who are not a party to this appeal. All four appellants were charged with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base ("crack") (count 1). Hall and Johnson were charged with two counts each of travelling in interstate commerce with intent to facilitate the distribution of crack (counts 4 & 5), and with obstruction of justice (count 10). Hall, Johnson and Saget were charged with laundering the proceeds of illegal drug transactions (count 15). Johnson and Roberson were charged with multiple counts of distribution of crack. (Johnson--counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 & 13; Roberson--counts 11 & 12). Finally, Hall was charged with perjury before the grand jury (count 14). With the exception of the money laundering counts against Saget and Johnson, the appellants were found guilty on all counts. The district court sentenced Hall, Johnson and Roberson to life imprisonment for the conspiracy and to at least one concurrent term of twenty years or more for the other counts on which they were convicted. Saget was sentenced to imprisonment for 330 months, to be followed by 5 years supervised release.

The grand jury indictment resulted from the investigation of a cocaine conspiracy involving the appellants. The conspiracy was set up in the form of a partnership, with preassigned ownership interests, for the purpose of obtaining quantities of crack cocaine from southern Florida and transporting them to Savannah, Georgia for further distribution. Hall was the planner and head of the partnership. Saget was responsible for transporting the cocaine from Florida to Savannah where other members of the conspiracy would divide the quantity into smaller parcels and further distribute the cocaine. Saget delivered one-half of a kilogram of cocaine at least twice a month for ten months. Johnson and Roberson were primarily responsible for selling the smaller quantities of crack. Hall and Johnson each contributed money for the initial shipment of cocaine. Thereafter, over the course of their operation, Hall wired money to Saget in Florida for drug purchases, and he traveled with Johnson to Florida to deliver money to Saget.

After a jury trial resulted in convictions for each appellant, appellants filed post-trial motions for arrest of judgment and for a new trial, which the district court denied. Appellants then filed the instant appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

A. MOTION FOR SEVERANCE

Roberson contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for severance due to the prejudice he suffered by association with the other defendants at trial. Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b), joinder of multiple defendants is proper whenever there is a "common thread" between the actions charged against them. United States v. McLain, 823 F.2d 1457, 1467 (11th Cir.1987). In conspiracy cases like this one, the general principle is well-settled that "persons who are charged together should also be tried together." United States v. Morales, 868 F.2d 1562, 1571 (11th Cir.1989). In evaluating a motion for severance, this court must determine whether the prejudice inherent in a joint trial outweighs the interests in judicial economy. Id. To establish that the district court's balancing of interests was an abuse of discretion, Roberson must "demonstrate that a joint trial resulted in specific and compelling prejudice to the conduct of his defense." U.S. v. Lehder-Rivas, 955 F.2d 1510, 1521 (11th Cir.1992). "Compelling prejudice" is demonstrated by a showing that the jury was unable to make an individualized determination as to each defendant. Id. "Convictions invariably are sustained when it may be inferred from the verdict that the jury meticulously sifted the evidence, by acquitting on particular counts indicating an individual assessment of the guilt of each defendant." United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1551, 1560 (11th Cir.1990). The district court instructed the jury "to give separate, personal consideration to the case of each individual defendant" (R10-1470), and the record confirms that the jury independently evaluated the evidence against each defendant on each count. The jury not only acquitted Cecilia Hall Strobert ¹ of conspiracy, but also acquitted Johnson of money laundering while convicting him of other charges. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roberson's motion for severance.

B. MOTION FOR MISTRIAL

Roberson challenges the district court's denial of his motion for mistrial after a government witness' testimony relating to Johnson's withdrawn plea agreement. "The decision to grant a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial judge since he is in the best position to evaluate the prejudicial effect of a statement or evidence on the jury." U.S. v. Blakey, 960 F.2d 996, 1000 (11th Cir.1992). Further, "prejudicial testimony will not mandate a mistrial when there is other significant evidence of guilt which reduces the likelihood that the otherwise improper testimony had a substantial impact on the verdict of the jury." United States v. Anderson, 782 F.2d 908, 916 (11th Cir.1986). At trial, Johnson took the stand and admitted selling crack on every occasion alleged in the indictment, although he denied any involvement in the conspiracy with the other defendants. Immediately after Johnson testified, his counsel called an FBI agent to the stand who revealed that Johnson had at one time agreed to a plea bargain. ² The district court declared that the reference to a plea agreement was improper but found no need to declare a mistrial since Johnson himself had already admitted to the jury that he was guilty of six counts of the indictment. However, the court did give the jury a curative instruction to the effect that no guilty plea had been entered in this case and instructed the jurors to disregard any information to the contrary that they had heard. The terms of the plea agreement were never disclosed at trial, nor was any reference made to the other defendants with respect to plea agreements. In light of the overwhelming evidence of Roberson's guilt, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial.

C. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

Roberson contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance because the government supplied new evidence two weeks before trial was to begin. Denial of a continuance, requested by a defendant in order to permit additional preparation for trial, must be upheld unless the defendant can show an abuse of discretion and specific, substantial prejudice. United States v. Gossett, 877 F.2d 901, 906 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1082, 110 S.Ct. 1141, 107 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1990). To make such a showing, Roberson must identify relevant, non-cumulative evidence that would have been presented if his request for a continuance had been granted. See United States v. Gibbs, 594 F.2d 125 (5th Cir.1979) (defendant unable to point to any critical document that might have been uncovered with additional time and whose absence prejudiced or impaired his defense). Roberson argues that two weeks was an insufficient amount of time to allow him to fully evaluate the voluminous amounts of new evidence and to fully prepare his case for trial. The district court found to the contrary and indicated that it was "satisfied that the government had not deliberately withheld important discovery material from the defendants, and the court is convinced that the defendants have had ample opportunity to review and analyze the discovery material and prepare adequately for the trial of this case." (Magistrate Judge's Order, October 4, 1991). The record contains nothing that would indicate a different result had the motions been granted. In the absence of any proffer of additional evidence that would have been presented by Roberson if granted a continuance, we cannot find any specific or substantial prejudice arising from the district court's denial of his motion for a continuance.

D. BATSON v. KENTUCKY CHALLENGE

Hall contends that the district court's acceptance of the government's explanation for its use of preemptory challenges is clearly erroneous. The government used four of its six preemptory challenges to strike African-American persons from the venire. The district court found that Hall had established a prima facie case of discrimination under the principles set forth in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), but then accepted the government's explanations for its...