Co-Defendant’s Improper Closing Argument Didn’t Deny Other Defendants Fair Trial

US v. Arias: Arias, Gutierrez, and Villatoro were MS-13 members charged with (among other things) racketeering, murder, and witness tampering. They went to trial together, where Villatoro, during closing argument, explained why he did not take the stand and why “it’s best to let counsel speak for Villatoro as best she can to tell his story.” Counsel also argued that the Government witnesses testified truthfully about the two murders involved with regards to his codefendants, but not him. The Government began to object, but the district court instructed it not to. Arias objected when the argument was over, arguing that Villatoro’s argued suggested Arias had no reason not to testify. The district court denied a motion for a mistrial or to sever and provided a cautionary instruction to the jury, to which Villatoro objected, as it instructed the jury to disregard his entire argument. All three defendants were convicted (although not on all charges).

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the defendants’ convictions. As to Arias and Guitierrez, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to sever their cases from Villatoro’s or declare a mistrial. The court concluded that any prejudice they might have suffered had been cured by the district court’s instruction. The court noted that it presumes jurors follow instructions and would not extend Bruton beyond its facts. As to Villatoro, however, the court held that the district court had abused its discretion by striking all of his closing argument, rather than just the objectionable parts.