United States v. Rohitesh Prasad

28 F.3d 110 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rohitesh PRASAD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50549. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 16, 1993. * Decided May 31, 1994. Before: CHOY, SKOPIL, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Appellant Rohitesh Prasad contends that the district court erred by not granting severance. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. United States v. Vasquez-Valasco, 15 F.3d 833, 844 (9th Cir.1994). Prasad has failed to demonstrate clear, manifest or undue prejudice from the joint trial. United States v. Arias-Villanueva, 998 F.2d 1491, 1506 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 573 (1993). He could have testified or otherwise presented his proffered defense notwithstanding the severance ruling. 3 Moreover, even assuming antagonistic defenses, there is no per se rule requiring severance. United States v. Tootick, 952 F.2d 1078, 1081…