United States v. Sangeeta Mann, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14586

Mann appeals convictions for conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and aiding and abetting evidence tampering.
Charges arise from a federal grand jury investigation into a West Memphis bombing targeting the Arkansas State Medical Board chair.
Mann’s husband, Dr. Mann, was implicated; after his arrest, he instructed Mann to remove items from his office before a search.
A second superseding indictment charged both Mann and Dr. Mann with obstruction and tampering; Mann sought severance under Rules 8 and 14, which the district court denied.
Trial occurred over nearly three weeks; Mann was convicted on the obstruction and tampering counts, but acquitted on a perjury charge.
On sentencing, Mann received a downward variance to 12 months; she appeals on joinder/severance, jury impartiality, ex parte communications, and evidentiary sufficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Joinder and severance	Mann alleges misjoinder and abuse of discretion in denying severance.	District court properly joined because evidence was admissible and instructions compartmentalized.	No reversible prejudice; no abuse of discretion; affirmed.
Jury impartiality	Voir dire questionnaire and seated jurors show bias and prejudice.	Plain error standard; district court credibility determinations control; no reversible error.	No plain error; trial court did not abuse discretion; impartial jury found.
Ex parte communications	Ex parte judge-to-jury communication requires remand for evidentiary hearing.	Communication was ministerial; disclosed; no prejudice.	No remand; no prejudice; no evidentiary hearing required.
Sufficiency of the evidence – Conspiracy to obstruct	Evidence shows Mann corrupted to impede the investigation by removing items.	Evidence does not establish a nexus that prevents a reasonable doubt.	Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction.
Sufficiency of the evidence – Aiding and abetting tampering	Removal and concealment of documents linked to Sandip Mann to impair proceedings.	No adequate nexus or intent proven to impair an official proceeding.	Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction.

Lane v. United States, 474 U.S. 438 (1986) (misjoinder prejudice analysis; standard for reversal)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (joinder and prejudice framework)
Mickelson v. United States, 378 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2004) (limiting instructions cure prejudice in joint trials)
Avila Vargas v. United States, 570 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2009) (jury compartmentalization and joint trials)
Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (acquittal on some counts as factor in bias assessment)
Rimell v. United States, 21 F.3d 281 (8th Cir. 1994) (abuse of discretion in severance analysis)
Koskela v. United States, 86 F.3d 122 (8th Cir. 1996) (ministerial ex parte communications not prejudicial)
Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (1983) (remand for evidentiary hearing when ex parte communication not disclosed)
Aguilar v. United States, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) (nexus requirement for jury tampering; temporal/causal/logical relation)