DRAFT — Defendant Gabriel Garcia's Motion to Sever Trial

United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

United States of America v. Angel Carrer-Rivera, et al.

Criminal No. 3:25-cr-00240-FAB — Gabriel Garcia [defendant designation to confirm]

Prepared November 5, 2026. FOR COUNSEL REVIEW ONLY — NOT FOR FILING AS WRITTEN.

Filing gate

The operative indictment, current docket, motion deadline, current trial grouping, and any earlier severance ruling remain unverified. Bracketed items require supporting records, not assumptions. This draft does not establish that severance is warranted. Do not file it with unresolved placeholders. Counsel must update authorities and comply with the court's current scheduling and local requirements.

Motion and requested relief

Defendant Gabriel Garcia, through counsel, respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a) for a trial separate from the remaining codefendants. Alternatively, he requests a focused pretrial evidentiary determination, defendant-specific presentation safeguards, and leave to renew the request if the government's actual trial presentation creates prejudice that those safeguards cannot cure.

The requested relief is based on the specific evidence and trial risks identified in the completed proffer below, not merely on the number of defendants, differences in the volume of evidence, family relationships, or the prospect of a better result in a separate trial.

I. Verified procedural foundation and matters requiring confirmation

The September 15, 2025 Memorandum and Order, Docket 114, identifies Docket 3 as an indictment returned May 21, 2025. It describes two conspiracy counts applicable to all defendants and additional substantive mail/wire-fraud counts applicable in differing combinations. The order concerns recorded undercover video and protective conditions, not severance. Its discussion states that the video depicts Rivera-Maitin, undercover personnel, and the source, and recognizes potential relevance to other defendants. It therefore does not establish that the recordings would be inadmissible at Garcia's separate trial. Official order, pp. 2–6.

Counsel must insert: [operative indictment entry and date]; [counts actually remaining against Garcia]; [trial date]; [remaining joined defendants]; [severance deadline]; and [earlier relevant rulings]. The audit's reference to “five counts” is inconsistent with its enumeration of counts 1, 2, 5, and 18–22. Neither formulation is adopted here as a verified current charging description.

II. Governing standard

Rule 8(b) addresses whether defendants may be charged together; Rule 14 addresses prejudice even when joinder is proper. This motion provisionally assumes proper joinder and does not assert facial misjoinder without the operative indictment. Rule 14(b) permits the court to require in-camera production of a defendant's statement that the government intends to use. Counsel must address timeliness under Rule 12(b)(3)(D) and any required good-cause showing for an untimely motion. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 8, 12, 14.

Under Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 538–41 (1993), inconsistent defenses do not automatically require separate trials. The relevant concern is a serious threat to a particular trial right or to reliable, individualized adjudication. The court has discretion to select narrower measures, including limiting instructions. Garcia must explain why the particular measures available here would fail, rather than rely on a generalized claim of spillover. Official opinion.

United States v. Chisholm, No. 17-1952, slip op. pp. 18–23 (1st Cir.), illustrates the difficulty of establishing prejudice from conflicting defenses and the importance of instructions directing separate consideration. This draft does not equate blame-shifting with a constitutional violation. Official opinion.

III. Specific prejudice: counsel must complete this proffer

The defense requests an exhibit-by-exhibit analysis rather than treating all discovery concerning other claimants as irrelevant. Garcia's alleged knowledge and participation must be distinguished from what another person knew or did, while recognizing that conspiracy evidence may be admissible across defendants.

For EACH item relied upon, counsel should supply:

• Record: [Bates number, exhibit, complete recording/time range, accurate translation, witness].
• Proposed use: [government's identified purpose and defendants against whom offered].
• Individual connection: [what connects, or fails to connect, the item to Garcia; contrary evidence included].
• Separate-trial analysis: [why the item would not be admissible against Garcia alone, addressing the government's expected theory].
• Concrete prejudice: [specific trial right or inference at risk].
• Insufficiency of alternatives: [why a contemporaneous instruction, redaction, separate verdict form, or presentation order would not cure THIS risk].

The audit supplies leads, not authenticated exhibits. Potential leads include employee system activity, allegations involving other benefit applicants, intermediary statements about influence, and distinctions between Garcia's own communications and third-party accounts. No such item is represented here as excluded, false, or inadmissible. Counsel should not assert that Garcia never participated in payment discussions or referrals without addressing the potentially contrary material identified in the audit.

A. Evidence concerning other defendants or claimants

[After verification, identify the specific evidence, its anticipated length and prominence at trial, and the limited or disputed connection to Garcia. Explain why the risk is not simply that the prosecution has more evidence against another defendant.]

A proposed evidentiary boundary could distinguish Garcia-specific communications, common-conspiracy evidence, and evidence admitted only against another defendant. Counsel should identify any necessary boundary the government cannot reliably maintain during its planned presentation. The absence of Garcia from a recording, by itself, is not an adequate severance argument.

B. Codefendant statements — conditional ground only

[Include only if an actual statement and the government's intended use are identified.] Request review of the complete statement and proposed redaction outside the jury's presence. Do not assume every codefendant statement creates a confrontation problem: testimonial character, availability for cross-examination, admissibility theory, and the actual redaction matter. Counsel should analyze Bruton and its later cases, including Samia, before asserting that instructions cannot cure the identified problem. This draft does not claim that an identified Bruton violation has occurred.

C. Exculpatory codefendant testimony — conditional ground only

United States v. Rivera-Rivera, Nos. 22-1982, 23-1112, 23-1133, slip op. pp. 35–39 (1st Cir. July 25, 2025), requires a concrete showing of need, substance, exculpatory effect, and actual willingness to testify after severance; an expectation that a codefendant might testify is insufficient. The opinion also addresses impeachment, judicial economy, and timeliness. Official opinion.

[Attach a truthful declaration or other reliable proffer identifying the testimony and its conditions, if available. Otherwise delete this ground. No witness willingness or exculpatory statement has been verified for this draft.]

IV. Alternatives and requested procedure

If the court does not order separate trials on the completed record, Garcia requests:

1. Identification before trial of disputed codefendant statements and their proposed uses and redactions.
2. A conference resolving defendant-specific evidentiary boundaries and disputed translations before presentation to the jury.
3. Contemporaneous instructions identifying the permitted defendant and purpose when evidence has limited admissibility.
4. Separate consideration of each defendant and count, with verdict forms matched to the operative indictment.
5. Organized exhibits that distinguish dates, claimants, and speakers without suggesting collective culpability.
6. An opportunity to renew severance if a specific, uncured risk emerges; this request does not substitute for timely objections or preservation required by the court.

These requests do not seek to suppress properly admissible conspiracy evidence merely because Garcia was not present for every event.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons established in the completed evidentiary proffer, Garcia respectfully requests severance. Alternatively, he requests the focused procedures and protections listed above and a ruling addressing the identified risks on the actual trial record.

Respectfully submitted,

[Counsel name, bar number, firm, address, telephone, email]

[Signature and actual filing date]

Proposed order — alternative forms for counsel

If severance is granted: Upon consideration of the motion, the supported proffer, and the parties' submissions, the Court orders that Gabriel Garcia be tried separately from [identified defendants]. A separate scheduling order will follow. [Court to supply findings and signature.]

If further development is required: The Court sets a pretrial conference on [date] and directs the parties to submit the disputed evidence and proposed safeguards by [date]. The severance motion remains [under advisement / denied without prejudice, as ordered]. [Court to select disposition.]

Service

[Counsel must insert a truthful certificate only after service actually occurs. No filing, service, contact with opposing counsel, or court submission has been performed.]