__________________ DISTRICT OF TEXAS
										
__________________  DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA	                 §
§
v.	                                                                 §	__________________
     §	
_______________________________               §

Brief in Support of Motion for Severance of Defendants

TO THE HONORABLE ///, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE /// DISTRICT OF TEXAS, /// DIVISION:

I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

II.

ARGUMENT

	While Rule 8(a)of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits joinder of offenses on the sole basis that such offenses are of “the same or similar character”, Rule 8(b) will not allow the joinder of such “same or similar” offenses in a case where multiple Defendants are involved unless such offenses arose out of the same series of acts or transactions.  There should be some logical relationship between the occurrences or existence of a common plan, scheme or conspiracy.  U.S. v. Ford, 632 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. den. 101 S.Ct. 1399; U.S. v. Marionneaux., 514 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1975); Matheany v. U.S., 365 F.2d 90, 94 (9th Cir. 1966); U.S. v. Granello, 365 F.2d 990, 993 (2nd Cir. 1966); Ingram v. U.S., 272 F.2d 567 (4th Cir. 1959); Cupo v. U.S., 359 F.2d 990, 993 (D.C. Cir. 1966); U.S. v. Satterfield, 548 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1977); Cain v. U.S., 355 F.2d 700 (1st Cir. 1966); U.S. v. Spector, 326 F.2d 345, 349-351 (7th Cir. 1963).
	While the Defendants are alleged to have committed similar offenses, the indictment does not allege that the offenses arose out of the same transaction or were part of a series of transactions or that the Defendants cooperated or conspired in the commission of these offenses, or that there is any connection whatsoever between these Defendants.  [Further, this Defendant is charged with additional offenses under a separate section of the United States Code, ____________________.  The indictment does not indicate that there is any overlapping proof between the three Defendants or that there is any evidence in common to all of the counts.  Under this rule, there must be some common activity involving all the Defendants which embraces all charged offenses, even though every Defendant need not have participated in or be charged with each offense.  U.S. v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1982), cert. den. 103 S.Ct. 456.
III.
CONCLUSION
	As the offenses charged against Defendant ///, do not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the offenses charged against the other Defendants, charging of all Defendants in the same indictment constitutes “misjoinder”, and severance should be allowed.  Improper joinder is regarded as inherently prejudicial and granting a motion for severance where such misjoinder has occurred is mandatory and not discretionary with the Court. U.S. v. Lane, 584 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1978); U.S. v. Nettles, 570 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1978); U.S. v. Levine, 546 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1977), rein. den. 551 F.2d 687.
	WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant /// prays that the charges against  him/her be severed from those against the other Defendants remaining in this cause, and that /// be granted a separate trial. 
							Respectfully Submitted,

							___________________________________
							Name
							State Bar No. 
							Address
							City, State, Zip
							Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

	This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Brief In Support Of Motion For Severance of Defendants was hand delivered to ///, Assistant United States Attorney, /// Street, ///, Texas ///, on the /// day of 20///.

							______________________________________
							Attorney for Defendant