Motion to Sever (Abdihakim Ali Ahmed) — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 197, D. Minn.)

Summary

A Motion to Sever, Doc. 197, filed 12/15/23 in Case 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL, United States of America v. Abdihakim Ali Ahmed, 22-CR-223 (NEB/TNL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Through counsel, Ahmed moves under Rules 8 and 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants, and states that the motion is made at this time to preserve the issue. He argues that the indictment alleges a sprawling series of overlapping and distinct conspiracies, that a jury in a case with millions of documents may be unable to compartmentalize the evidence, that a co-defendant's statements may raise a Confrontation Clause problem, and that his defense may be irreconcilable with another defendant's. The motion is dated December 15, 2023.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

         CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 197 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 2




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                        Plaintiff,
                    - against -                                 MOTION TO SEVER

 ABDIHAKIM ALI AHMED,                                          22-CR-223 (NEB/TNL)
                                    Defendant.




       Defendant Abdihakim Ali Ahmed, by and through his attorney, hereby moves the Court

pursuant to Rules 8 and 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for an order severing his

trial from that of his co-defendants. This motion is made at this time to preserve the issue, as the

landscape of defendants choosing to exercise their right to trial, the complete universe of

discovery as well as the subset of evidence to be presented at trial, and the nature of individual

defenses have not yet been fully determined. The grounds for this motion are as follows:

       1. The indictment alleges a sprawling series of overlapping and distinct conspiracies and

           Mr. Ahmed is not properly be joined for trial with several of his other defendants

           under Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which permits joinder

           when defendants are “alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in

           the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.” Id.

       2. In a case with millions of documents and over a dozen co-defendants, the jury may be

           “unable to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to the separate defendants.”

           United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 858 (8th Cir. 2003). In particular,

           “[w]hen many defendants are tried together in a complex case and they have

           markedly different degrees of culpability, the risk of prejudice is heightened.” Zafiro

           v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).
        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 197 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 2




       3. Prejudicial evidence will potentially be introduced as to other co-defendants which

           would be inadmissible against Mr. Ahmed in a separate trial. United States v. Hively,

           437 F.3d 752, 765 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[p]rejudice can be demonstrated by showing that

           the jury will be unable to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to the separate

           defendants because of a ‘prejudicial spillover effect’”) (quotation omitted).

       4. Co-defendant’s statements may be introduced at trial presenting a Confrontation

           Clause problem in violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).

       5. Mr. Ahmed’s defense may be irreconcilable with that of another defendant.

           Washington, 318 F.3d at 858.

       6. It may transpire that there exists exculpatory testimony which would be available in a

           separate trial, which would not be available in a joint trial.” United States v. Foote,

           920 F.2d 1395, 1399 (8th Cir. 1990) (quotation omitted).

       In short, a joint trial with all the other co-defendants in this case would be prejudicial to

Mr. Ahmed, and, as such, he requests that he be tried alone.

Dated: Minneapolis, Minnesota
       December 15, 2023                              Respectfully Submitted.


                                                               /s/

                                                      JANEANNE MURRAY
                                                      Registration No. 0394887
                                                      Murray Law LLC
                                                      Attorney for Abdihakim Ali Ahmed
                                                      310 South Fourth Avenue, Suite 5010
                                                      Minneapolis, MN 55415
                                                      Tel. (612) 339-5160




                                                  2


File and source

File

197.pdf

Size

86,581 bytes

SHA-256

21bf2344ba069ca32521f9eaa610c3163d40c22f6efe6b517d10d4311ce02df1

Our copy

197.pdf

Original

archive.org