United States v. Smith
Criminal No. 2019-0307
| D.D.C. | Apr 11, 2022Background
- Defendants Willis Lewis and Brittany Jones are charged in a superseding indictment alleging a multi-count conspiracy to sex-traffick two minors and to transport them across state lines; Lewis faces all counts, Jones faces a subset.
- Charges include sex trafficking by force and of minors, conspiracy counts, transportation counts, racketeering-related travel, a firearm-possession count (Count XII), and an obstruction count (Count XIII).
- Both defendants moved to sever their trials from one another under Fed. R. Crim. P. 14; joinder at the indictment stage was under Rule 8(b).
- Lewis argued severance was required due to Bruton/Confrontation Clause concerns, a disparity of evidence, and allegedly antagonistic/conflicting defenses (including that Jones’s counsel could act as a “second prosecutor”).
- Jones argued Counts XII (firearm) and XIII (obstruction) were improperly joined with the sex-trafficking counts and that joint trial would be prejudicial due to antagonistic defenses and lost access to exculpatory testimony if tried together.
- The court denied both motions: Rule 8(b) joinder was proper; Bruton concerns can be addressed by redactions and limiting instructions; evidence of firearm and obstruction was logically related and admissible; neither defendant met Rule 14’s heavy burden to show specific prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper joinder under Rule 8(b) | Counts and defendants arise from same series of acts (sex‑trafficking conspiracy); joinder is favored | Lewis/Jones contend some counts are unrelated (Jones: firearm/obstruction) | Joinder proper: logical relationship between trafficking, firearm use, and concealment; Rule 8(b) satisfied |
| Bruton / Confrontation Clause | Any non‑testifying co‑defendant statements can be redacted and limited; no Sixth Amendment violation if properly handled | Lewis asserts Bruton violation if Jones’s statements are admitted | Denied: redaction plus limiting instruction avoids Bruton‘s bar; no automatic severance required |
| Disparity of evidence / mutually antagonistic defenses / "second prosecutor" | Government says evidence supports charges against both; speculative antagonism insufficient | Lewis argues evidence against Jones is stronger and defenses will conflict or counsel will act as a second prosecutor | Denied: movant must show serious risk of prejudice or irreconcilable defenses; Lewis gave only conclusory claims and failed to meet heavy burden |
| Joinder of firearm (Count XII) and obstruction (Count XIII) / need for co‑defendant testimony | Firearm and obstruction arose in furtherance of trafficking (threat/intimidation, concealment); evidence will be admissible and distinct | Jones argues these counts are different in character and will prejudice her; also claims lost access to exculpatory co‑defendant testimony if tried together | Denied: Counts XII/XIII logically related and admissible; Jones failed to make prima facie showing of specific exculpatory testimony and likelihood it would be offered at separate trials |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (joint‑trial severance allowed only where joinder would seriously risk compromising a specific trial right or jury reliability)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (Confrontation Clause prohibits admission of a non‑testifying co‑defendant’s confession that expressly implicates another defendant)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (proper redactions and limiting instructions can avoid Bruton problems)
- United States v. Perry, 731 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Rule 8(b) joinder requires a logical relationship among the acts or transactions)
- United States v. Nicely, 922 F.2d 850 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (joinder claims are difficult to prevail on when a logical relation exists)
- United States v. Gooch, 665 F.3d 1318 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (burden on moving defendant to show prejudice for severance)