United States v. Thompson
219 F.Supp.3d 502, 2016 WL 7045741, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187938 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Defendants indicted together for participating in the same alleged conspiracy are properly joined for trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b). A defendant seeking severance under Rule 14(a) bears the heavy burden of demonstrating clear and substantial prejudice that outweighs the strong public interest in judicial economy favoring joint trials.
Facts:
- Randy Thompson was allegedly part of a large drug distribution network, with eighteen co-defendants, that operated along the Interstate 80 corridor in central Pennsylvania.
- The network used a core set of mobile telephone numbers to coordinate heroin and cocaine sales with customers.
- Court-authorized wiretap surveillance captured Thompson allegedly arranging drug deals on one of these phones, known as 'Target Telephone #7.'
- Thompson and several co-conspirators allegedly used motel rooms as bases of operation for storing, packaging, and selling drugs.
- On January 20, 2016, investigators stopped Thompson's orange pickup truck after it left one of the motels.
- Inside the truck with Thompson was co-conspirator Chantel McFarlin, who had $2,400 in cash hidden in her bra; Thompson had $800 in his wallet and pockets.
- A search of the motel rooms revealed heroin, crack cocaine, packaging materials, and a digital scale.
- Another co-conspirator, Alkeisha Edwards, was arrested separately and found with 'Target Telephone #7' on her person.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania returned a Superseding Indictment.
- The indictment charged Randy Thompson and eighteen co-defendants with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.
- Defendant Randy Thompson filed a motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8(b) and 14(a).
- The Government filed a brief in opposition to the Defendant's motion to sever.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the joinder of defendant Randy Thompson with his eighteen co-defendants for a single conspiracy trial constitute improper joinder under Rule 8(b) or result in clear and substantial prejudice that warrants severance under Rule 14(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Brann, J.
No. The joinder of Thompson with his co-defendants is proper, and he has failed to demonstrate the clear and substantial prejudice required for severance. Joinder was appropriate under Rule 8(b) because the indictment alleges all defendants participated in the same series of acts constituting a single conspiracy. There is a strong preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants indicted together, particularly in conspiracy cases which provide a 'common link' among defendants. The indictment and pretrial evidence show substantial common links, including common drug sources, customers, operational sites, and shared mobile phone lines. Thompson's argument that there were multiple sub-conspiracies is insufficient to defeat joinder, as is his argument that he was not involved in every act undertaken by every co-conspirator. Furthermore, Thompson has not met the high burden for severance under Rule 14(a). His claims of 'inconsistent defenses' amount to mere finger-pointing, which is not enough to show prejudice. His vague assertion that co-defendants would offer exculpatory testimony is unsupported, and the potential for prejudice from firearms evidence against other defendants is minimal, especially since drugs and guns are often linked as 'tools of the trade.' The strong public interest in judicial economy heavily favors a joint trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold defendants must meet to sever their trials from co-defendants in federal conspiracy cases. It underscores the judiciary's strong preference for joint trials to promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent verdicts, especially when a single criminal enterprise is alleged. The court's reasoning demonstrates that generic claims of prejudice, such as blame-shifting defenses or the introduction of evidence that pertains more to co-defendants (like firearms), are typically insufficient to overcome this preference. The opinion serves as a practical guide on how courts weigh the 'clear and substantial prejudice' standard against the significant public interest in judicial economy.
