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
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "They are next level on intelligence and understanding. My full respect to these attorneys." by Amber R. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More


Further, the “customary justification” for joinder of offenses “of the same or similar character” disappears when the offenses arise out of separate, unrelated transactions. US v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1979). In Halper, where the defendant was convicted in the same trial of unrelated crimes of fraud and income tax evasion, the Second Circuit reversed both convictions, holding that their joinder was prejudicial error. US v. Halper, Supra, at p. 431. The Court noted that neither time nor money is saved in trying offenses “of the same or similar character” together:


“When all that can be said of two separate offenses is that they are of the ‘same or similar character,’ the customary justifications for joinder (efficiency or economy) largely disappear. Whereas the joinder of offenses ‘based on the same act or transaction’ or of offenses based ’on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan’ is reasonable and desirable both from the government’s and the

1 In fact, the Fifth Circuit has held that misjoinder of offenses under Rule 8(a) is “inherently prejudicial”; US v. Bova, 493 F.2d 33 (5th Cir. 1974).


defendant’s perspective, the same cannot be said for joinder of offenses of the ‘same or similar character.’ In the former situations, the government should not be put to the task of proving what is essentially the same, or at least connected, charges. See: United States v. McGrath, supra, 558 F.2d at 1106. In the later circumstance, however, the only time likely saved by joinder of ‘same or similar character’ offenses is the time spent selecting a jury, and perhaps the time spent examining character witnesses. On the whole, however, the ‘trials’ on the joined charges are distinct. See: 9 Moore’s, Federal Practice, §8.05(2), at 8-19. At the same time, the risk to the defendant in such circumstances is considerable.” US v. Halper, Supra, at 590 F.2d at p.430.


It has been described as “paradoxical” that Rule 8(a) permits joinder of “similar” offenses “while on the practical level the more similar the offenses the greater the chance that the jury will confuse them”, Moore’s, Federal Practice- Criminal Rules, §14.03

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