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 addresses Craig King’s renewed oral motion to sever (“Motion”), raised yesterday
afternoon during trial. King argues severance is warranted under Bruton v. United States.1 For the
reasons stated below, the Court DENIES King’s renewed Motion.
As King asserts, the Government intends to introduce a recorded phone call between Defendants
Roy Naughton and Filthy Fuhrer in which they discuss alleged victim Michael Staton “ripping off
Red and White,” i.e., the Hells Angels. The Government contends that during this phone call,
Naughton and Fuhrer are referring to Staton stealing from King.2 King argues this statement about
“Red and White” violates Bruton and asks the Court to sever his trial for that reason. King
alternatively requests to exclude the statement.
The statement about Staton “ripping off Red and White” falls outside the scope of Bruton. In
Bruton, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is deprived of their Sixth
Amendment Confrontation Clause right when “powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements
of a codefendant”—such as a codefendant’s confession explicitly implicating the defendant—are
admitted in a joint trial.3 Bruton’s holding is “narrow”4 in two respects relevant here. First, it
applies only to “testimonial codefendant statements.”5 A statement is “testimonial” when it is
provided in a context “functionally identical to live, in-court testimony” or when it is given with
“the primary purpose of assisting in [the defendant’s] prosecution.”6 Second, Bruton does not
apply to “a statement, not incriminating on its face, that implicates the defendant only in
connection to other admitted evidence.”7 Here, the at-issue statement about Staton “ripping off
1 391 U.S. 123 (1968).
2 See Dkt. 1062 at 4 (Order).
3 Bruton, 391 U.S. at 135; Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 207 (1987) (“In Bruton, . . . [w]e
held that a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the facially
incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if
the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the codefendant.”).
4 Richardson, 481 U.S. at 207.
5 Lucero v. Holland, 902 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding “that only testimonial codefendant
statements are subject to the federal Confrontation Clause limits established in Bruton”).
6 Id. at 989 (quotations omitted).
7 Mason v. Yarborough, 447 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. at 211).
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1101 Filed 03/29/22 Page 1 of 2

2
Red and White,” which comes from a recorded jail call between Naughton and Fuhrer, is neither
testimonial nor incriminating on its face. Thus, Bruton is inapplicable.
For this reason and those articulated in the Orders at Dockets 389 and 1086, the Court DENIES
King’s renewed Motion to sever his trial.
Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.
DATE: March 29, 2022.
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1101 Filed 03/29/22 Page 2 of 2