United States v. Andrew Harris
686 F. App'x 474
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Andrew Lee Harris was charged in a nine-count superseding indictment; appealed trial rulings concerning severance/bifurcation and witness testimony.
- Count 4: defendant sought severance under Rule 14(a), arguing need to testify differently on that count versus others.
- Counts 6 and 7 each charged Harris as a felon in possession of a firearm; the court bifurcated Count 6 at trial but denied severance/bifurcation of Count 7.
- Government called Detective Greg Tomlinson as an expert; district court admitted him without an explicit Daubert hearing and limited cross-examination on an unrelated drug sweep as irrelevant.
- Majority affirmed district court rulings; a partial dissent (Judge Paez) would have reversed convictions on Counts 3–5, finding manifest prejudice from failure to bifurcate Count 7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count 4 should be severed under Rule 14(a) | Government: joinder proper and no prejudice shown | Harris: needs to testify differently on Count 4 and avoid testifying on other counts | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; proffered testimony was a general denial not showing need for severance (Nolan standard) |
| Whether Count 7 (felon-in-possession) was properly joined/bifurcated (Rules 8(a), 14(a)) | Government: Counts 6 and 7 are same/similar; joinder proper and no manifest prejudice requiring bifurcation | Harris: trial of Count 7 with other charges caused prejudice; sought bifurcation | Affirmed — joinder proper; denial of bifurcation not an abuse of discretion because evidence withheld would have been only a generic stipulation and precautions were sufficient (Lopez/Jawara/Rousseau) |
| Admissibility of Detective Tomlinson as expert and scope of cross-examination (Daubert/relevance) | Government: Tomlinson qualified by training/experience; cross-exam limitation warranted as unrelated drug sweep irrelevant | Harris: sought broader cross-examination about prior sweep to attack credibility/reliability | Affirmed — district court adequately performed gatekeeping without formal hearing and permissibly limited cross-examination as irrelevant and prejudicial (Daubert/Hankey/Larson) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. United States, 700 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1983) (severance standard requires showing of important testimony and strong need to refrain from testifying on other counts)
- Rousseau v. United States, 257 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2001) (joinder analysis for crimes of similar character)
- Jawara v. United States, 474 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2006) (proper joinder on the face of the indictment limits need to revisit Rule 8(a))
- Lopez v. United States, 477 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2007) (manifest prejudice standard in refusing bifurcation of felon-in-possession counts)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping duty for expert testimony)
- Hankey v. United States, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court may admit expert without formal Daubert hearing when record shows reliability inquiry)
- Larson v. United States, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (limits on cross-examination where evidence is irrelevant or wastes time)
- Lewis v. United States, 787 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1986) (manifest prejudice from joinder can require reversal/remand)