`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`
` NO: 13-CR-14-RMP
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`LOUIS DANIEL SMITH, also known
`as Daniel Smith, also known as Daniel
`Votino; KARIS DELONG, also known
`as Karis Copper; TAMMY OLSON;
`and CHRIS OLSON,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE COURT are Motions to Sever Trial from Defendant Smith
`
`filed by Codefendants Tammy Olson and Karis Delong, respectively. ECF Nos.
`
`317, 318. Also before the Court is a motion to accept a late-filed declaration in
`
`support of the motions to sever, filed by Defendant Louis Daniel Smith, ECF No.
`
`361, and a motion to expedite the same, ECF No. 362, which was granted in the
`
`Court’s Order Memorializing Court’s Oral Rulings at ECF No. 367.
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 1
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
`SEVER TRIAL
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Codefendants Tammy Olson and Karis Delong were indicted, along with
`
`Defendant Smith, on one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the
`
`United States or to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; four
`
`counts of delivering misbranded drugs into interstate commerce in violation of 21
`
`U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2); and one count of smuggling in violation of 18
`
`U.S.C. § 545. ECF No. 1. The Indictment alleges that the Defendants engaged in
`
`a scheme to import, manufacture, and sell hazardous material that was marketed as
`
`a health product. Id. Specifically, the Indictment alleges that Defendants,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`operating through a company called “PGL International,” misbranded sodium
`
`11
`
`chlorite, a harmful chemical, as Miracle Mineral Solution (“MMS”) and marketed
`
`12
`
`it to the public for consumption to cure such ailments as malaria, HIV/AIDS,
`
`13
`
`hepatitis, and various forms of cancer. Id. at 4, 7.
`
`14
`
`With regard to count one of the Indictment, Defendants are accused of
`
`15
`
`conspiring “to obtain the chemicals needed to manufacture the drug MMS without
`
`16
`
`revealing to regulators and suppliers the true purpose of the chemicals; to use those
`
`17
`
`chemicals to manufacture the drug MMS in a facility that was hidden from
`
`18
`
`regulators; to offer MMS for sale on websites they had established; and to enrich
`
`19
`
`themselves by obtaining money from the interstate sales of the misbranded drug
`
`20
`
`MMS.” Id. at 7. The Indictment contains numerous specific allegations as to
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Codefendants Karis Delong and Tammy Olson’s alleged involvement in the
`
`conspiracy, along with Defendant Smith and Codefendant Chris Olson.1
`
`Codefendants Tammy Olson and Karis Delong filed motions to sever their
`
`trial from the trial of Defendant Smith, contending that they require access to
`
`exculpatory testimony that Defendant Smith only can provide at their separate trial.
`
`ECF Nos. 317, 318. At the Codefendants’ request, the Court allowed for
`
`supplemental briefing on the Codefendants’ motions to sever. ECF No. 337.
`
`Codefendants Tammy Olson and Karis Delong filed their supplemental
`
`memoranda ex parte. ECF Nos. 354, 355.2 Codefendants explained that they were
`
`10
`
`filing their memorandum ex parte due to their reliance on certain materials to
`
`11
`
`which Defendant Smith has claimed attorney-client privilege and which have not
`
`12
`
`been disclosed to the Government.
`
`13
`
`On July 14, 2014, after the deadline set forth in the Court’s Pretrial Order,
`
`14
`
`Defendant Smith filed a declaration in support of Codefendants Tammy Olson’s
`
`15
`
`and Karis Delong’s motions to sever. ECF No. 357. The Government filed its
`
`16
`
`supplemental response within the time frame set forth in the Court’s Pretrial Order
`
`17
`
`and argued in part that Defendant Smith’s supporting declaration was not timely
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`1 Codefendant Chris Olson has since pleaded guilty to one count of Shipment of
`Misbranded Drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(1).
`2 Codefendant Delong filed her supplemental memorandum as a separate motion,
`but the Court reviews it as a supplement to her original motion.
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 3
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`filed. ECF No. 359. The Court determined at oral argument that it would accept
`
`Defendant Smith’s late-filed declaration. ECF No. 367 at 2. The Court
`
`additionally will consider a reply brief that Defendant Smith filed in support of
`
`Codefendants Tammy Olson’s and Karis Delong’s motions to sever, ECF No. 363.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Codefendants Tammy Olson and Karis Delong both premise their motions to
`
`sever on the basis that Defendant Smith would provide exculpatory testimony as to
`
`those two Codefendants in a separate trial. See, e.g., United States v. Mariscal,
`
`939 F.2d 884, 885 (9th Cir. 1991).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`There exists a preference in the federal system that codefendants jointly
`
`11
`
`charged should be jointly tried. E.g., United States v. Hernandez-Orellana, 539
`
`12
`
`F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2008). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) provides
`
`13
`
`for joinder of two or more defendants if the defendants “are alleged to have
`
`14
`
`participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or
`
`15
`
`transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.” However, a court may sever
`
`16
`
`defendants’ trials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a) where joinder
`
`17
`
`“appears to prejudice a defendant.”
`
`18
`
`When joinder was originally proper under Rule 8(b), “a district court should
`
`19
`
`grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial
`
`20
`
`would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 4
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.” Zafiro v. United
`
`States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993). “Rules 8(b) and 14 are designed ‘to promote
`
`economy and efficiency and to avoid a multiplicity of trials, [so long as] these
`
`objects can be achieved without substantial prejudice to the right of the defendants
`
`to a fair trial.” Id. at 540 (quoting Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 130
`
`(1968)) (alteration in Zafiro).
`
`One basis for ordering separate trials is when a codefendant will provide
`
`exculpatory testimony at another defendant’s separate trial. E.g., Mariscal, 939
`
`F.2d at 885. In considering a request for severance on this ground, the court must
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`weigh such factors as “the good faith of the intent to have a codefendant testify, the
`
`11
`
`probability that the testimony will materialize, the economy of a joint trial, the
`
`12
`
`possible weight and credibility of the predicted testimony, and the degree to which
`
`13
`
`the predicted testimony is exculpatory.” United States v. Cuozzo, 962 F.2d 945,
`
`14
`
`950 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Mariscal, 939 F.2d at 885)). The predicted testimony is
`
`15
`
`not sufficiently exculpatory where it would merely be favorable to the moving
`
`16
`
`defendant; rather, the predicted testimony must instead be “substantially
`
`17
`
`exculpatory.” Mariscal, 939 F.2d at 886 (quoting United States v. Ford, 870 F.2d
`
`18
`
`729, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). “A showing that the testimony would merely
`
`19
`
`contradict portions of the government’s proof is insufficient.” Id. The test for
`
`20
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 5
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`severability on this ground is “stringent.” United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 892
`
`(9th Cir. 1993).
`
`Codefendants Tammy Olson and Karis Delong contend that their trials must
`
`be severed from that of Defendant Smith because Defendant Smith can provide
`
`exculpatory evidence that could not otherwise be presented without his testimony,
`
`and that Defendant Smith likely would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to
`
`remain silent if called to testify at a joint trial. Specifically, Codefendants Tammy
`
`Olson and Karis Delong point to Count One of the Indictment, which charges all
`
`Defendants with engaging in a conspiracy “with the intent to defraud or mislead
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the United States and its agencies,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. As the
`
`11
`
`Codefendants point out, § 371 criminalizes only willful intent. United States v.
`
`12
`
`Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989). Codefendants Tammy Olson and Karis
`
`13
`
`Delong contend that Defendant Smith can testify that they did not act willfully,
`
`14
`
`because they were not privy to the communications that Defendant Smith had with
`
`15
`
`attorneys and consultants, or with the FDA, regarding the continued sale of MMS.
`
`16
`
`In support of their argument, Codefendants point to emails between
`
`17
`
`Defendant Smith and his previous attorney Nancy Lord. Defendant Smith has
`
`18
`
`asserted that he is entitled to attorney-client privilege as to these emails. The
`
`19
`
`emails, which were obtained by a search warrant and screened by the
`
`20
`
`Government’s screening team, were ordered by the Court to be provided to the
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 6
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`Codefendants in discovery pursuant to the Government’s Brady obligations. The
`
`Court has considered the substance of these emails in ruling on the Codefendants’
`
`motions to sever.
`
`In addition, Defendant Smith filed a declaration in which he stated that he
`
`will provide testimony at the separate trial of his Codefendants “whether such trial
`
`may precede or follow” his own. ECF No. 357 at 2. Defendant Smith stated that
`
`he would testify that neither Tammy Olson nor Karis Delong was privy to the
`
`general business dealings of his company. Id. at 4, 13. Defendant Smith also
`
`states that he would testify that Tammy Olson worked remotely and was
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`responsible for dealing with customers and third-party companies fulfilling the
`
`11
`
`packaging and shipping of MMS. Id. at 3-4. According to Defendant Smith, Ms.
`
`12
`
`Olson’s “set duties and responsibilities were extremely limited and did not include
`
`13
`
`regular ordering, purchasing, receiving, manufacturing, bottling, labeling,
`
`14
`
`production inspection, or shipping of materials, nor was [she] involved in any of
`
`15
`
`the technical, legal, or financial affairs of [Smith’s company].” Id. at 4.
`
`16
`
`As to Karis Delong, Defendant Smith would testify that she has spent the
`
`17
`
`last decade tending to and home-schooling the three children whom she has raised
`
`18
`
`with Defendant Smith. Id. at 11. According to Defendant Smith, Ms. Delong “had
`
`19
`
`the least involvement in PGL of any of the co-defendants,” and that where her
`
`20
`
`name does appear in connection with financial transactions, “the transaction was
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 7
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`[in almost every instance] made exclusively by [Defendant Smith] without
`
`[Codefendant Delong’s] knowledge or involvement.” Id. Defendant Smith would
`
`additionally testify that Codefendant Delong did not manage any business finances
`
`and “thus had no reason to know what purchases were being made or for what
`
`purpose”; that Codefendant Delong “never played any real managerial or decision
`
`making role in the [business]”; that Codefendant Delong told Defendant Smith on
`
`“numerous occasions” that she was “not interested in being involved in the
`
`business”; and that even though Defendant Smith would forward business-related
`
`emails to Codefendant Delong, she had told him “on more than one occasion” that
`
`10
`
`“she rarely read what I forwarded” and would admit to him on some occasions that
`
`11
`
`she did not even open an email he had forwarded to her. Id. at 11-13.
`
`12
`
`Defendant Smith also would apparently seek to offer character testimony
`
`13
`
`regarding his Codefendants, including that “they would never do anything to harm
`
`14
`
`another individual and never, knowingly, willfully, or intentionally break the law,
`
`15
`
`let alone defraud the government.” Id. at 10. Defendant Smith offers that in his
`
`16
`
`view that the evidence he has seen in discovery does not support the charges
`
`17
`
`against his codefendants. The Court finds that such testimony is not likely to be
`
`18
`
`admissible at trial.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`For its part, the Government concedes that the good faith of the intent to
`
`have a codefendant testify and the probability that the testimony will materialize
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`are two factors weighing in favor of severance. See Mariscal, 939 F.2d at 885.
`
`However, the Government contends that the remaining factors each weigh against
`
`severance. The Government argues that severance should not be granted because
`
`Defendant Smith plans to testify on largely inadmissible matters; the admissible
`
`testimony that Defendant Smith will offer is not credible; and Defendant Smith’s
`
`planned testimony is not substantially exculpatory, especially in light of the
`
`evidence that the Government will introduce at trial.
`
`According to the Government, evidence will be introduced at trial
`
`demonstrating that Codefendants Olson and Delong were aware of FDA warnings
`
`10
`
`regarding the safety of MMS; that the FDA had inspected and seized MMS from
`
`11
`
`contractors; that the FDA had provided Defendant Smith with warnings regarding
`
`12
`
`the legality of his actions; that Codefendant Olson was aware of the execution of
`
`13
`
`multiple search warrants including one executed at her then-husband’s company
`
`14
`
`during the course of the criminal investigation; and that Codefendant Olson
`
`15
`
`continued to market and sell MMS through her own website even after the search
`
`16
`
`warrants were executed.
`
`17
`
`The Government further contends that the economy of a joint trial weighs
`
`18
`
`heavily against severance because at least ten government witnesses reside out of
`
`19
`
`district and because witnesses’ memories may fade and evidence may spoil as
`
`20
`
`numerous trials are conducted. Finally, the Government contends that
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 9
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Codefendants could obtain their evidence through other sources, including by
`
`subpoenaing attorney Nancy Lord or other persons with whom Defendant Smith
`
`consulted, or by testifying on their own behalf.
`
`The Government additionally contends that Defendant Smith has placed
`
`restrictions on his offer of testimony. See United States v. Gay, 567 F.2d 916, 919-
`
`20 (9th Cir. 1978) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion “in
`
`refusing to accede to [a codefendant’s] conditional offer to present exculpatory
`
`testimony”). The Court notes that although Defendant Smith stated that he would
`
`testify regardless of whether his trial or the Codefendants’ trial came first that he
`
`10
`
`could assert a Fifth Amendment privilege if his trial precedes the trial of his
`
`11
`
`Codefendants. ECF No. 357 at 2.
`
`12
`
`In considering all of the relevant factors, the Court concludes that severance
`
`13
`
`on the grounds identified by Coefendants Tammy Olson and Karis Delong is not
`
`14
`
`warranted. To succeed on the grounds identified, the Codefendants must show that
`
`15
`
`Defendant Smith’s planned testimony would be “substantially exculpatory.”
`
`16
`
`Mariscal, 939 F.2d at 886. “A mere assertion of ultimate fact is not substantially
`
`17
`
`exculpatory.” United States v. Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 533 (9th Cir. 1993)
`
`18
`
`(citing Ford, 870 F.2d at 730-32), overruled on other grounds by United States v.
`
`19
`
`Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 11 (1994).
`
`20
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 10
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Although Defendant Smith proffers testimony that Codefendants Tammy
`
`Olson and Karis Delong played only limited roles in the MMS distribution scheme
`
`and were thus unaware of the possible illegality of their actions, hissupporting
`
`affidavit is contradictory on this point. For example, Defendant Smith proffers that
`
`“Ms. Olson’s limited duties afforded her no reason or occasion to receive, buy, or
`
`conceal Sodium Chlorite, let alone be aware of any such importation,” ECF No.
`
`357 at 5, yet Defendant Smith concedes that Tammy Olson dealt with customers
`
`purchasing MMS and that her duties “occasionally included speaking with
`
`representatives of [third party fulfillment companies who packaged and shipped
`
`10
`
`MMS] in order to locate lost or missing orders.” Id. at 3. Moreover, Defendant
`
`11
`
`Smith concedes that Tammy Olson’s then-husband, Codefendant Chris Olson,
`
`12
`
`bottled MMS for the same company where Tammy Olson was employed as a
`
`13
`
`“member care” representative dealing with purchasers of MMS. Id. at 8.
`
`14
`
`As to Codefendant Karis Delong, Defendant Smith would testify that she
`
`15
`
`“had the least involvement in PGL of any of the co-defendants.” Id. at 11. Yet
`
`16
`
`Defendant Smith also admits that a PayPal account, a web domain, and a bank
`
`17
`
`account, all tied to the selling of MMS, were operated in Karis Delong’s name. Id.
`
`18
`
`Defendant Smith also admits that Karis Delong appeared as a managing member
`
`19
`
`on LLC documentation for a company selling MMS. Id. at 12. According to
`
`20
`
`Defendant Smith, Ms. Delong additionally “reluctantly covered for [him]” when he
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 11
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`left town for a business trip and “picked up product for me from the manufacturer
`
`once or twice and may have attended [] meeting[s] with [him].” Id. at 12.
`
`Defendant Smith additionally concedes that he forwarded numerous “business-
`
`related email[s]” to Karis Delong, but contends that she “rarely read what I
`
`forwarded.” Id. at 13.
`
`Apart from Defendant Smith’s affidavit, the Government also states that it
`
`intends to introduce evidence contradicting Defendant Smith’s characterization of
`
`Codefendants Tammy Olson’s and Karis Delong’s roles in the company. For
`
`example, the Indictment alleges that Karis Delong “was a managing member of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`PGL who frequently handled financial transactions for PGL,” and used multiple
`
`11
`
`email addresses “to communicate with co-conspirators, suppliers, and other
`
`12
`
`individuals associated with MMS and PGL.” Id. at 4. The Indictment further
`
`13
`
`alleges that Tammy Olson “established the website purestreamhealth.com after
`
`14
`
`federal agents executed search warrants at various locations in Spokane,
`
`15
`
`Washington, related to the production and shipping of MMS,” and that Ms. Olson
`
`16
`
`used the purestreamhealth.com website to “continue[] marketing and selling MMS
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`to consumers.” Id. at 15.3
`
`
`3 Although an Indictment is not evidence, the Government has indicated that it
`intends to introduce evidence backing up these charges at trial, including troves of
`electronic communications obtained through a warrant on the Defendants’
`associated Google accounts.
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 12
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Therefore, Defendant Smith’s mere assertions that Codefendants Tammy
`
`Olson and Karis Delong did not have knowledge of the MMS scheme are
`
`insufficient to establish that his testimony would be substantially exculpatory,
`
`especially in light of his accompanying statements that contradict that proposition.
`
`The planned testimony offered by Defendant Smith could be viewed as inculpatory
`
`as it is exculpatory, and the exculpatory components of his testimony would
`
`merely contradict portions of the Government’s evidence, which is not sufficient to
`
`support severance. See United States v. Pitner, 307 F.3d 1178, 1181-82 (testimony
`
`is not “substantially exculpatory” where it “refutes only portions of the
`
`10
`
`government’s case, and leaves unaffected other evidence sufficient to convict”)
`
`11
`
`(citing Reese, 2 F.3d at 892).
`
`12
`
`Nor does Codefendants Tammy Olson’s and Karis Delong’s reliance on
`
`13
`
`privileged communications between Mr. Smith and his counsel, Nancy Lord,
`
`14
`
`establish that severance is appropriate or that they would have access to
`
`15
`
`substantially exculpatory evidence at their separate trials. Codefendants Tammy
`
`16
`
`Olson and Karis Delong assert that Defendant Smith had communications with
`
`17
`
`Nancy Lord regarding the legality of PGL’s actions and that Defendant Smith
`
`18
`
`either did not communicate his conversations with Ms. Lord to his Codefendants or
`
`19
`
`that he misrepresented the substance of these communications to his Codefendants.
`
`20
`
`However, in Defendant Smith’s declaration submitted in support of the motions to
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 13
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`sever he states that he would testify that he “relayed [his] reliance upon” Ms. Lord
`
`and other supposed legal experts “to co-defendants Tammy Olson and Karis
`
`Delong.” ECF No. 357 at 21. Defendant Smith has not said that he would testify
`
`that he withheld advice given to him by Ms. Lord regarding the legality of PGL’s
`
`actions. Similarly, the mere inclusion of any emails by Ms. Lord at separate trials
`
`would not be relevant as to whether Codefendants Olson and Delong were aware,
`
`or unaware, of their content.
`
`The economy of joint trials also weighs heavily against severance. It is
`
`apparent that separate trials would be entirely duplicative as the same evidence
`
`10
`
`would be introduced and the same witnesses would testify at separate trials of
`
`11
`
`Defendant Smith and his Codefendants. The concern for judicial economy is “an
`
`12
`
`important factor militating against severance” in this case. Reese, 2 F.3d at 892.
`
`13
`
`The Court additionally notes that Defendant Smith’s planned testimony
`
`14
`
`would not appear to bear substantial weight or credibility. As discussed above,
`
`15
`
`Defendant Smith will seemingly contradict himself as he seeks to portray the
`
`16
`
`Codefendants as having a very limited role in PGL while admitting that they in fact
`
`17
`
`had substantial involvement in at least some areas and instances, including dealing
`
`18
`
`with shippers, bottlers, and suppliers. In addition, Defendant Smith has
`
`19
`
`longstanding personal relationships with both Codefendants Tammy Olson and
`
`20
`
`Karis Delong that may minimize the weight of his testimony. However, the Court
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 14
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cr-00014-RMP Document 381 Filed 09/03/14
`
`
`
`does not place much reliance on this factor because it is ultimately the jury’s
`
`function to determine the weight and credibility of any testimony given at trial.
`
`The Court concludes that Codefendants Tammy Olson and Karis Delong’s
`
`motions to sever should be denied because they have not met the necessary
`
`condition of showing that Defendant Smith will offer substantially exculpatory
`
`testimony if the trials are severed. In addition, judicial economy would not be
`
`served by separate trials.
`
`Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
`
`1. Defendant Tammy Olson’s Motion to Sever Defendant, ECF No. 317, is
`
`DENIED.
`
`2. Defendant Karis Delong’s Motion to Sever Defendant, ECF No. 318, is
`
`DENIED.
`
`3. Defendant Karis Delong’s Ex Parte Motion, ECF No. 355, is DENIED.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`15
`
`
`
`The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
`
`16
`
`counsel and to pro se Defendant Smith.
`
`DATED this 3rd day of September 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
`
` ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
`
` Chief United States District Court Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEVER TRIAL ~ 15