USA v. Fuhrer et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
United States of America v. Filthy Fuhrer, et al.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00026-TMB-SAO
By: 	THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
PROCEEDINGS: 	ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
This Order follows the Court’s oral ruling denying Craig King’s renewed motion to sever. King
orally renewed his motion to sever in light of opening statements, arguing his defense is
antagonistic to that of his codefendants. The Court DENIES the renewed motion as King has not
established that a joint trial is “so manifestly prejudicial” that severance is warranted.1
While the Court agrees with King that his defense is somewhat antagonistic to that of his
codefendants, “[a]ntagonism between defenses or the desire of one defendant to exculpate himself
by inculpating a codefendant . . . is insufficient to require severance.”2 Rather, “a defendant must
show that the core of the codefendant’s defense is so irreconcilable with the core of his own
defense that the acceptance of the codefendant’s theory by the jury precludes acquittal of the
defendant.”3
Having considered King’s position and the parties’ opening statements, the Court again finds the
parties’ defenses “are not mutually exclusive or irreconcilable” to the degree that severance is
required.4 If the jury accepts the theories advanced by King’s codefendants, it will not be precluded
from acquitting King.5
1 United States v. Lopez, 477 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Zafiro v. United States, 506
U.S. 534, 539 (1993) (“[A] district court should grant a severance under [Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure (“Rule”)] 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific
trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt
or innocence.”); id. at 540 (“Rules 8(b) and 14 are designed to promote economy and efficiency
and to avoid a multiplicity of trials, [so long as] these objectives can be achieved without
substantial prejudice to the right of the defendants to a fair trial.”) (internal quotations omitted).
2 United States v. Throckmorton, 87 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that mere antagonism
and finger pointing between codefendants does not require severance under Rule 14).
3 Id.
4 See Dkt. 389 at 17 (Order).
5 See Throckmorton, 87 F.3d at 1072; see also Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540 (“[I]t is well settled that
defendants are not entitled to severance merely because they may have a better chance of acquittal
in separate trials.”).
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1086 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 2

2
For this reason and those articulated in the Order at Docket 389, the Court DENIES King’s
renewed request to sever his trial.
Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.
DATE: March 23, 2022.
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1086 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 2