New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I have known Ms. Orr for over a decade and she is an excellent criminal defense attorney with high ethical standards." by Peer Attorney Read More
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard R. Read More
  • "They are next level on intelligence and understanding. My full respect to these attorneys." by Amber R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More


Where a single indictment joins offenses, other than as provided above, such constitutes a “misjoinder” of offenses. US v. Goodman, 285 F.2d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 366 US 930, and failure to grant a severance for separate trial of such offenses constitutes reversible error, regardless of whether a showing of specific prejudice is made. US v. Marionneaux, 514 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1973); US v. Sutton, 605 F.2d 260 (6th Cir. 1979); US v. Chinchic, 655 F.2d 547 (4th Cir. 1981). See also US v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2nd Cir. 1980); Tillman v. U.S., 406 F. 2d 930, 933, n. 5 (5th Cir. 1969); Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, §14.02[1]; Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, §144. Contra: US v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1971); US v. Aleman, 609 F.2d 298 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 63 L.Ed.2d 780 (1980). The vice inherent in “misjoinder”, which Rule 8(a) attempts to negate, is the harmful spill-over effect of trying an accused for unconnected offenses in the same trial.

(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact