US v. Cristobal Silverio, No. 12-4629 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4629 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CRISTOBAL SILVERIO, a/k/a Christopher, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00041-AJT-3) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 11, 2013 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan A. Simms, SIMMS & HARRIS, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Lisa Owings, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cristobal Silverio pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and subsequently was convicted at trial of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm received in an furtherance aggregate of a drug sentence crime. 120 of trafficking in months He prison. Silverio now appeals, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial co-defendant, Martin Morales Benavente. from that of his We affirm. If the joinder of . . . defendants in an indictment . . . appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may . . . sever the defendants trials. 14(a). for Fed. R. Crim. P. However, [t]here is a preference in the federal system joint trials of defendants who are indicted Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993). particularly favored in conspiracy cases. together. Joinder is United States v. Montgomery, 262 F.3d 233, 244 n.5 (4th Cir. 2001). To prevail on a motion to sever, the defendant bears the burden of establishing: (1) a bona fide need for the testimony of his co-defendant; (2) the likelihood that the co-defendant would testify at a second trial and waive his Fifth Amendment privilege; (3) the substance of his co-defendant s testimony; and (4) the exculpatory nature and effect of such testimony. 2 United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 779 (4th Cir. 1983). We review the denial of a defendant s motion to sever his trial from that of a co-defendant for abuse of discretion. United States v. Medford, 661 F.3d 746, 753 (4th Cir. 2011). During the colloquy on Silverio s motion, counsel was equivocal as to whether Benavente would testify on Silverio s behalf if the motion were granted. Accordingly, Silverio failed to establish the second requirement under Parodi. Because a defendant seeking a severance must establish all four of the Parodi factors, Medford, 661 F.3d at 754, we conclude that the district did court not abuse its discretion in denying Silverio s motion. We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
