The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Padilla-Duran, 43 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1994):
Padilla contends that the prejudicial spillover effect of strong evidence presented on count three, dictates a finding of misjoinder under Rule 8. His argument misapprehends the scope of this rule. "Because Rule 8 is concerned with the propriety of joining offenses in the indictment, the validity of the joinder is determined solely by the allegations in the indictment." United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 276 (9th Cir.1990).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.