UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
October 5, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JOSE ALFARO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Manuel Real United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER (Doc. 618) AND FINDINGS THERETO
Having heard from plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, and defendant JOSE ALFARO, by and through the authorized representative of his counsel of record, James Cooper, at a hearing held before this Court on September 16, 2010, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AS FOLLOWS
1. The Court read and considered Jose Alfaro's Motion To Sever (Doc. No. 618) and the government's opposition thereto.
2. The Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, declarations and documents filed by the parties, as well as the argument presented at the hearing, orally denied the defendant's Motion to Sever. This Order will supplement the Court's oral ruling denying the motion. In connection with this Order, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. On September 16, 2010, this Court held a hearing on the motion. Defendant appeared in person with his counsel of record. After affording the parties opportunity for argument, the Court denied defendant's Motion to Sever.
4. The Court finds that on a motion for severance, the moving party must show more than that a separate trial would give him a better chance of acquittal. He must show a violation of one of his substantive rights by reason of going to trial.
5. The Court considers United States v. Freeman, 6 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 1993)and finds that a joint trial is particularly appropriate, whereas here, a conspiracy is alleged.
6. The defendant does not present this Court with sufficient arguments to warrant severance.
THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Jose Alfaro's Motion to Sever is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.