United States v. Bullen
2:22-cr-00494
| E.D.N.Y | Aug 5, 2025Background
- Defendant Ashokbhai Patel and others were indicted for conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and for managing a drug premises at the Sayville Motor Lodge in New York from 2014 to 2022.
- The Government alleges Patel, as a motel employee, conspired with others to facilitate prostitution (including of minors), drug trafficking, and violence at the motel.
- Patel filed a motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant, Johnson, arguing spillover prejudice, antagonistic defenses, and concerns regarding co-defendant statements.
- The Government opposed, asserting the facts against both men are intertwined and there is no risk of undue prejudice or irreconcilable defenses.
- The Court considered Patel’s requests both to sever his case and to join in the applicable pretrial motions of his co-defendants.
- The rulings were issued pending a joint October 2025 trial for Patel and Johnson after Patel’s co-defendant motel owners pled guilty and other co-defendants underwent competency proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Patel's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance for Spillover Prejudice | Trial should be severed due to disproportionate evidence against codefendants | Cases/facts are intertwined; evidence not so disproportionate to confuse jury | Denied |
| Severance for Antagonistic Defenses | Defenses conflict irreconcilably; will admit some acts, implicate Johnson | No mutual exclusivity; differences in role not legal grounds for severance | Denied |
| Severance for Co-defendant Statements | Severance warranted if co-defendants’ statements implicate Patel | No such statements are anticipated; will notify if changed | Denied as premature |
| Joinder in Co-defendants’ Motions | Seeks to join any applicable co-defendants’ pretrial motions | No opposition; only disclosure motions currently available | Granted in part, otherwise moot |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rittweger, 524 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (conspiracy charge supports joinder under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b))
- United States v. Nicolo, 421 F. App’x 57 (2d Cir. 2011) (joinder proper where conspiracy alleged)
- United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535 (2d Cir. 1988) (conspiracy allegations typically satisfy Rule 8(b) for joinder)
- United States v. Cardascia, 951 F.2d 474 (2d Cir. 1991) (antagonistic defenses require irreconcilable, mutually exclusive conflict to warrant severance)
- United States v. Spinelli, 352 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2003) (differences in culpability and proof are not sufficient for severance)