United States Tenth Circuit

Defendant's conviction for retaliating against a witness is affirmed where: 1) the government presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant participated in an agreement to assault the victim and that he acted interdependently with another alleged coconspirator; 2) requiring defendant to wear a stun belt was a necessary security measure because of the nature of the crimes at issue; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendants because defendant's prosecution did not constitute an extraordinary instance where prejudice would have been manifested from evidentiary and culpability disparities.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/22/2009
• Published 09/22/2009

Judges

• HOLMES, Circuit Judge., Before MURPHY, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Submitted on the briefs: Mark D. Jarmie, Jarmie & Associates, Albuquerque, NM, for the Defendant-Appellant., Troy A. Eid, United States Attorney, Matthew Kirsch, Assistant United States Attorney, James C. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for the Plaintiff-Appellee.