Opinion of the Court — United States v. Anderson

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 5, 2002
Case: United States v. Anderson
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

*326 MEMORANDUM ** Defendant-Appellant Lois Marie Anderson appeals her conviction for nine counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 . Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we do not recount it here. We affirm. Anderson argues that she and her co-defendant, Dr. Joseph Tyrone Alfred, presented mutually antagonistic defenses that were irreconcilable and therefore the district court should have granted her request for severance. A district court’s refusal to sever is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and should be reversed only when the “joint trial was so manifestly prejudicial as to require the trial judge to exercise his discretion in but one way, by ordering a separate trial.” United States v. Abushi, 682 F.2d 1289, 1296 (9th Cir. 1982). Mutually antagonistic defenses may prevent the jury from reliably determining guilt or innocence, and therefore warrant severance, when “the core of the codefendant’s defense is so irreconcilable with the core of the [moving defendant’s] own defense that the acceptance of the codefendant’s theory by the jury precludes acquittal of the defendant.” United States v. Throckmorton, 87 F.3d 1…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.