United States v. Mark Owens, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10876

Kirkwood, a Texas State Bank teller, opened the vault and helped steal about $64,000 during a bank robbery on September 8, 2007.
Owens, Kirkwood's boyfriend, was alleged to have facilitated the robbery through his connections to the getaway truck and others involved.
A black Chevrolet S-10 and a warm motorcycle were linked to the plan; a license plate was recorded and traced to Anthony English, whose truck Owens used.
No physical or forensic evidence directly tying Kirkwood or Owens to the robbery was recovered; tagged bills vanished with the money.
A joint federal indictment charged Kirkwood with bank robbery and aiding and abetting; Owens joined as co-defendant; both moved to sever, which were denied.
The jury convicted both on the count for bank robbery by force or violence and aiding and abetting; restitution of $84,755 was ordered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion denying severance?	Kirkwood; Owens claim prejudice from joint trial and risk of guilt by association.	Kirkwood; Owens contend joint trial prejudicial and warrants separate trials.	No abuse; denials affirmed; no specific, compelling prejudice shown.
Was there sufficient evidence to convict Kirkwood?	Kirkwood argues insufficiency; alternatives equally plausible negate guilt.	Kirkwood asserts guilt supported by circumstantial evidence and participation in opening vault.	Sufficient evidence; reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was the denial of a mistrial for the digital-scale remark proper?	Kirkwood argues remark was prejudicial under Rule 404(b) and warrants mistrial.	Kirkwood asserts minimal prejudice; single isolated remark not warranting mistrial.	No reversible error; isolated remark not enough for mistrial; district court acted within discretion.

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (Supreme Court 1993) (joint trials are preferred; severance only for serious risk to a defendant's rights)
Tarango, 396 F.3d 666 (5th Cir. 2005) (jury instructed to consider each defendant separately; no reversible error from joint trial)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (Supreme Court 1987) (instructional safeguards presume juries follow limiting instructions)
Erwin, 793 F.2d 656 (5th Cir. 1986) (cautionary instructions; limited prejudice may not require mistrial)
Lewis, 476 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for severance decisions; strong preference for joint trials)
Gandolfo, 577 F.2d 955 (5th Cir. 1978) (insufficient evidence where links to crime are tenuous; emphasis on direct/strong connections)