UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSE DANIEL MURO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for severance and relief from prejudicial error.
Jose Daniel Muro was convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, tried jointly with co-conspirator Michael Martinez. Dur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Severance Of Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, Jose Daniel Muro appeals on the ground that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for severance and relief from prejudicial error. Muro was indicted and tried with co-conspirator Michael Martinez. He contends that his case was prejudiced because during the trial, the Government showed that Martinez made a statement after arrest and after termination of the conspiracy that his role was to act as lookout during a transaction and that he was to be paid $500. The testimony did not relate to Muro who requested, and received, an immediate instruction that the evidence related only to Martinez and had nothing to do with the case against Muro.
Severance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Crockett, 514 F. 2d 64 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Miller, 513 F. 2d 791 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Beasley, 513 F. 2d 309 (5th Cir. 1975). Even a confession implicating a co-defendant may be admitted in a joint trial if references to the co-defendant are deleted. United States v. Gray, 462 F. 2d 164 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1009, 93 S.Ct. 452, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972); Posey v. United States, 416 F. 2d 545 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 946, 90 S.Ct. 964, 25 L.Ed.2d 127 (1970).
Muro was not reversibly prejudiced by Martinez’ statement. It contained no reference to Muro, Martinez denied making the statement, and Muro had the opportunity to cross-examine. United States v. Sims, 434 F. 2d 258 (5th Cir. 1970). The evidence against Muro was sufficiently strong so that possibility of prejudice to him was too remote to be considered. See United States v. Killian, 524 F. 2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1975); White v. United States, 415 F. 2d 292 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 993, 90 S.Ct. 1128, 25 L.Ed.2d 400 (1970).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Kaminski, 692 F.2d 505 (8th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Posey v. United States, 416 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Crockett, 514 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Anderson v. Craven, 397 U.S. 946 (U.S. 1970)
- Toulson v. California, 397 U.S. 946 (U.S. 1970)
- Kansai Iron Works, Ltd. v. Marubeni-Iida, Inc., 409 U.S. 1009 (U.S. 1972)
- Cooper v. United States, 409 U.S. 1009 (U.S. 1972)
- United States v. Basil Miller, 513 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Killian, 524 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1975)
- White v. United States, 415 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1969)