United States v. Mann

• Decision Date: 17 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–1504.,11–1504.
• Citation: 685 F.3d 714
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sangeeta MANN, also known as Sue Mann, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

685 F.3d 714

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.Sangeeta MANN, also known as Sue Mann, Appellant.

No. 11–1504.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 11, 2012.

Filed: July 17, 2012.

Linda S. Sheffield, argued, Atlanta, GA, for appellant.

Michael S. Gordon, AUSA, argued, Karen Whatley, AUSA, on the brief, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Sangeeta Mann (“Mann”) appeals her convictions for conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and aiding and abetting evidence tampering. For the reasons set out below, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Mann's charges stem from a federal grand jury investigation into a well-publicized bombing attack in West Memphis, Arkansas, that targeted the then-chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board. Shortly after the bombing, Mann's husband (“Dr. Mann”), a physician whose license to dispense controlled substances had been revoked previously by the Board, was interviewed by agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”). Less than a month later, after a chance discovery by a municipal worker of a large cache of unregistered hand grenades buried near Dr. Mann's house, ATF agents executed a search warrant at Dr. Mann's house, found a number of unregistered firearms, and arrested Dr. Mann. After his arrest, in recorded phone calls from jail, Dr. Mann discussed with Mann the ongoing investigation and his expectation that federal agents would soon conduct additional searches. Dr. Mann instructed Mann to remove certain items from his medical office before it was searched, and she promptly complied.

A Second Superceding Indictment charged Dr. Mann with a number of counts related to the bombing and with the knowing possession of unregistered high explosive grenades and unregistered firearms. It charged both Mann and Dr. Mann with conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), (k), and with aiding and abetting evidence tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2. Mann was also charged with making a false material declaration while under oath, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Mann filed an initial motion to sever before the Second Superceding Indictment was filed and a supplemental motion after it was filed. In both, she argued that joinder of her charges with those of her husband was inappropriate under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8 and that severance of her charges from those of her husband was warranted under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a) because joinder would result in “extreme prejudice” to her. The district court ¹ denied each of Mann's motions, as well as a subsequent motion to sever filed by Dr. Mann and adopted by Mann.

The district court seated a jury after the distribution of jury questionnaires and an almost week-long voir dire process. The trial of Mann and Dr. Mann lasted over three weeks. On the third day of its deliberations, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Mann on both of the § 1512 charges and a not-guilty verdict on her § 1623 charge. It returned guilty verdicts against Dr. Mann on all of the charges relating to the bombing, on both of the § 1512 charges, and on all but one of his charges relating to possession of illegal firearms and explosives.

After trial, Mann filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal or for a new trial, which the district court denied. At her sentencing hearing, the district court calculated Mann's advisory sentencing guidelines range as 46 to 57 months' imprisonment, but then varied downward and sentenced Mann to 12 months' imprisonment. Mann appeals her convictions on various grounds.

II. DISCUSSION

Mann makes four arguments on appeal. First, she renews her joinder and severance arguments. Second, she argues that she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Third, she contends that an ex parte communication that occurred between the trial judge and jury necessitates an evidentiary hearing to determine its propriety. Fourth, she challenges the denial of her motion for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds of evidentiary insufficiency.

A. Joinder and Severance

Mann argues that the district court erred in joining her case with Dr. Mann's and then abused its discretion in denying her motion to sever. She contends that the joint trial was prejudicial to her because it included the presentation of evidence related to the “numerous bad acts of [her] husband and co-defendant.” “[T]he severity and complexity of [Dr. Mann's] charged offenses, the media coverage, and the emotional nature of the charges and evidence” created, in her view, a “high risk of undue prejudice.”

Joinder is a question of law, and we therefore review claims of misjoinder de novo. United States v. Liveoak, 377 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir.2004). “[A]n error involving misjoinder ... requires reversal only if the misjoinder results in actual prejudice because it ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.’ ” United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449, 106 S.Ct. 725, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)).

We review a district court's denial of a motion to sever made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 for abuse of discretion, Liveoak, 377 F.3d at 864, reversing only when the district court's denial “resulted in severe or compelling prejudice,” United States v. Rimell, 21 F.3d 281, 289 (8th Cir.1994). “Severe prejudice occurs when a defendant is deprived of an appreciable chance for an acquittal, a chance that [the defendant] would have had in a severed trial.” United States v. Garrett, 648 F.3d 618, 625–26 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Koskela, 86 F.3d 122, 126 (8th Cir.1996)). The burden of establishing prejudice falls on the defendant. Id. at 626. “Severance is not required merely because evidence that is admissible only against some defendants may be damaging to others.” United States v. Mickelson, 378 F.3d 810, 818 (8th Cir.2004).

Even if Mann could show either misjoinder or an abuse of discretion in failing to sever, Mann's claims on each of these legal grounds fails because she cannot demonstrate the prejudice necessary for reversal under either claim. “When there are few defendants and the trial court is aware of the potential for prejudice, ‘the risk of transference of guilt over the border of admissibility [may be] reduced to the minimum’ by carefully crafted limiting instructions with a strict charge to consider the guilt or innocence of each defendant independently.” Lane, 474 U.S. at 450 n. 13, 106 S.Ct. 725 (alteration in original) (quoting Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 560, 68 S.Ct. 248, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947)).

Mann has not challenged on appeal the adequacy of the district court's well-constructed and lengthy jury instructions. The jury was instructed to:

give separate consideration to the evidence about each individual defendant. Each defendant is entitled to be treated separately, and you must return a separate verdict for each defendant. Also keep in mind that you must consider, separately, each crime charged against each individual defendant, and must return a separate verdict for each of those crimes charged.

“The risk of prejudice posed by joint trials is best cured by careful and thorough jury instructions.” Mickelson, 378 F.3d at 818;see also United States v. Avila Vargas, 570 F.3d 1004, 1009 (8th Cir.2009). In addition, Dr. Mann's bombing and firearms charges were sufficiently distinct from Mann's obstruction and evidence-tampering charges that we see no reason to question the ability of the jury to compartmentalize the evidence presented on each charge against each defendant. See United States v. Lewis, 557 F.3d 601, 610–11 (8th Cir.2009). Indeed, powerful proof of the efficacy of the district court's instructions and of the jury's ability to compartmentalize the evidence is the fact that Mann and Dr. Mann each were acquitted on one count. See United States v. Pherigo, 327 F.3d 690, 693 (8th Cir.2003) (“In our consideration of the jury's ability to compartmentalize the evidence against the joint defendants, we consider ... if one or more of the defendants were acquitted.”); United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831, 849 (8th Cir.1998) (holding a jury's acquittal of defendants on certain counts to be evidence of the jury's ability to compartmentalize evidence).

In light of the district court's careful instruction of the jury and the jury's apparent ability to consider each defendant and each count individually, Mann has not demonstrated prejudice resulting either from the joining of her case with Dr. Mann's or from the district court's denial of her motion to sever. In the absence of such prejudice, we will not reverse on this basis.

B. Jury Impartiality

“[T]he criminally accused [have a right to] a fair trial by a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Voir dire serves the purpose of assuring a criminal defendant that this right will be protected.” United States v. Ortiz, 315 F.3d 873, 888 (8th Cir.2002). “Trial judges have broad discretion in determining how best to conduct voir dire, though this discretion is not without boundaries.” Id. “Because the trial judge is in the best position to analyze the demeanor and credibility of a venireman, we will not reverse a court's rulings absent an abuse of discretion.” Id.

Mann asserts that she was denied her right to an impartial jury. She points to the jury questionnaires collected at the outset of the voir dire process, which she contends “show that racial prejudice, religious and cultural prejudice, and media saturation and bias had compromised the jury pool, and made it impossible to select an impartial jury.” She also points to comments...