United States v. Michael R. Goland

Michael Goland takes an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case charging him with violation of federal election laws. His first trial was bifurcated 1 from his codefend-ants’ trial and ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree on a verdict. Goland appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground of double jeopardy. We affirm.

FACTS

The criminal charges against Goland arise from the 1986 campaign in California for a United States senate seat. The first superseding indictment charged Goland with five counts, all related to violations of the federal election law. 2 The indictment charged Goland’s two codefendants, Lyle Weisman and Sandor Habalow, with four of the five counts. Weisman and Habalow each moved to sever their trials based on their belief that Goland would testify favorably to them if their cases were severed. They also asserted that most of the evidence at a joint trial would concern Go-land, not them, and would prejudice them since they were charged with only minor participation in the conspiracy. The district court denied their motions without prejudice, specifically stating that it would reconsider if renewed motions were made later…

specially concurring:

I concur in the majority’s opinion because I believe retrial is the appropriate remedy for error in this case. I would also hold that the district court erred in bifurcating the trial sua sponte when Goland rested.

The district court informed the parties it would reconsider Goland’s codefendants’ severance motions upon the close of the government’s case. If the trial court also indicated then that it was considering bifurcation, it failed to communicate that thought clearly. Indeed, counsel for Go-land’s codefendants had repeatedly to request clarification of the court’s remarks. The district court did clearly assure all parties, however, that it would not sever if Goland refused to testify. Next, instead of reconsidering severance at the close of the government’s case, the district court reconsidered severance at the close of Goland’s defense. The district court then sua sponte bifurcated the trial. The district court’s conduct was thus unclear, inconsistent, and surprising to the parties, all possibly to Goland’s prejudice. Moreover, and as the majority’s opinion reveals, it is difficult to see on what authority the district court relied for bifurcation.…

897 F.2d 405 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael R. GOLAND, Defendant-Appellant. No. 89-50447. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 1989. Decided Feb. 26, 1990. George B. Newhouse, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Nathan Lewin, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before CHOY, TANG, and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: 1 Michael Goland takes an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case charging him with violation of federal election laws. His first trial was bifurcated 1 from his codefendants' trial and ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree on a verdict. Goland appeals the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground of double jeopardy. We affirm. FACTS 2 The criminal charges against Goland arise from the 1986 campaign in California for a United States senate seat. The first superseding indictment charged Goland with five counts, all related to violations of the federal election law. 2 The indictment charged Goland's…