083161P.pdf   01/29/2010  United States  v.  Steven Sandstrom
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-3161
                          and No:  08-3164
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Bye and Colloton, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal Case - conviction. District court did not abuse its discretion 
   in denying motion to sever, as even if the co-defendants' defenses were
   mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable, the government offered
   sufficient evidence independent of the alleged conflict between the two
   defenses as to their guilt. Moreover, the district court adequately
   addressed any risk of prejudice by properly instructing the jury.
   Admission of co-defendant's statement with redactions of other co-
   defendant's name may have implicated a Bruton violation, but even if a
   confrontation clause error occurred, any error was harmless beyond a
   reasonable doubt, as overwhelming evidence was presented of guilt.
   District court did not err in denying motions to dismiss multiplicitous
   counts. In counts 1 and 3, under the impulse test to prosecution under
   section 245(b)(2)(B), the two attacks were not uninterrupted and
   constituted separate acts at different times and locations. Counts 3 and 5
   were not multiplicitous because they each required proof of an element
   not required to prove the other. Weapons counts were not mulitplicitous
   because separate predicate offenses may support separate firearms
   offenses. Section 245 is constitutional under Thirteenth Amendment. 
   District court did not abuse its discretion in denying mistrial based on
   prosecutor's comments, as comments were not improper, and the jury
   would not have naturally and necessarily taken comments as highlighting
   defendants' failure to testify. Sufficient evidence was presented to
   support counts 1 and 2.