United States v. McClurge, Terrance ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                                In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    UNITED STATES       OF   AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    TERRANCE MCCLURGE
    and RENEIKO CARLISLE,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    ____________
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    No. 98 CR 929—James B. Moran, Judge.
    ____________
    ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2001—DECIDED NOVEMBER 27, 2002
    ____________
    Before COFFEY, EASTERBROOK, and RIPPLE, Circuit
    Judges.
    COFFEY, Circuit Judge. On November 10, 1999, a jury
    found defendants McClurge and Carlisle guilty of kid-
    napping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and using a
    firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.1
    Defendant McClurge challenges his conviction and argues
    on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion: (1) by
    not granting his motion for severance; (2) by refusing to
    1
    A third defendant, Alvertis McClurge, (a cousin of Terrance
    McClurge) was acquitted.
    2                                   Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    strike testimony of the prosecution’s key witness; and (3) by
    failing to grant a new trial or evidentiary hearing based
    on newly discovered evidence. Defendant Carlisle likewise
    challenges his conviction, joining in McClurge’s second
    argument; namely, that he was denied his Sixth Amend-
    ment right to confront his accuser when the district court
    allowed the prosecution’s witness to invoke his Fifth
    Amendment rights. We affirm.
    I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
    A. The Kidnapping
    Just after midnight on December 8, 1998, a Chicago-area
    drug dealer, Terrance McClurge (“McClurge”), aided by two
    accomplices, Reneiko Carlisle (“Carlisle”) and Tywon Can-
    non (“Cannon”), abducted Raymond Lewis (“Lewis”) at
    gunpoint in Maywood, Illinois. Lewis was the brother-in-
    law of Allen Jimmerson (“Jimmerson”), a Chicago resi-
    dent who supplemented his income as a gospel music
    producer with sales of illegal narcotics to dealers such as
    McClurge.
    A few months before Lewis’s abduction, McClurge had
    become disenchanted with Jimmerson and made plans
    to kidnap either Jimmerson or someone close to him.
    Cannon, who had pled guilty and testified at the defen-
    dants’ trial pursuant to a plea agreement, claimed that
    McClurge drove the black Lexus used in the kidnapping,
    that Carlisle had forced Lewis into the back seat of the
    car, and that Cannon himself had brandished a gun to
    frighten Lewis into submission.
    Once the four men were inside the vehicle, Carlisle
    handcuffed Lewis and covered his mouth and eyes with
    duct tape. The kidnappers drove to the residence of Mc-
    Clurge’s mother, where Lewis was escorted into a de-
    tached garage at the rear of the property. While Carlisle
    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333                                 3
    remained with Lewis in the garage, McClurge and Cannon
    drove to a nearby gas station to make the first of sev-
    eral phone calls demanding cocaine and money in ex-
    change for Lewis’s safe return. McClurge dialed Jimmer-
    son’s home phone number and handed the receiver to
    Cannon as he was of the opinion that Lewis’s family mem-
    bers might recognize his voice.
    Throughout the day of December 8th, McClurge and
    Cannon drove around the south side of Chicago making
    phone calls to Jimmerson attempting to arrange for a
    ransom payment. McClurge dialed the phone for each of
    the calls, passed the cell phone to Cannon, and told Can-
    non what to say. Later that day, after McClurge took
    Cannon home, McClurge recruited another of his friends,
    Marcus Marks (“Marks”), to assume the role of negoti-
    ator between the victim’s family and the kidnappers.
    Throughout the evening of December 8, McClurge and
    Marks drove around Chicago’s south side placing phone
    calls to Jimmerson. On this trip they were accompanied
    by Marks’s friend, Antwon Eiland (“Eiland”). Several of
    these calls were made from cell phones belonging to
    Marks and Eiland. By this time, FBI agents had been
    called in to assist the Maywood Police and had set up
    telephone recording equipment at the Jimmerson resi-
    dence. After numerous phone calls, eight of which were
    recorded by the FBI, McClurge, through Marks, told
    Jimmerson that he was becoming suspicious that the po-
    lice had become involved and that negotiations would
    be ended for the night.
    Late in the evening of the next day, December 9,
    McClurge told Marks that Lewis had to be moved out of
    the Chicago area. Marks agreed, but then withdrew from
    the plan after his mother voiced her objection to this
    proposed interstate travel with McClurge. McClurge, ac-
    4                                    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    companied by his cousin, Alvertis McClurge (“Alvertis”),2
    transported Lewis to Jackson, Michigan. They arrived
    at the residence of McClurge’s girlfriend in the early
    morning hours on December 10. Lewis was taken to the
    basement of the home, where he was watched while un-
    der the supervision of Alvertis. Alvertis testified at trial
    that he became involved and took care of Lewis only
    after being threatened by McClurge at gunpoint.
    Back in Chicago, FBI agents had identified Marks and
    Eiland as the owners of the cellular phones used to make
    the ransom calls, and both men were arrested in the early
    morning hours of December 10. Marks confessed to his
    role in the crime and offered to lead agents to the home
    where Lewis was being held in Jackson, Michigan. While
    Marks and two FBI agents were en route to Michigan
    on the morning of December 11, McClurge decided to re-
    lease Lewis. McClurge helped Lewis (whose eyes and
    mouth were still covered with duct tape, but whose hands
    had evidently been removed from the handcuffs) out of
    the basement, drove him to Detroit, and dropped him off
    in the vicinity of an AMTRAK station. Lewis, after man-
    aging to free himself from the duct tape that bound him,
    called a friend in Chicago from a pay phone at the sta-
    tion who in turn notified the police of Lewis’s location.
    FBI agents picked up Lewis and interviewed him.
    The criminal investigation of the kidnapping produced
    several pieces of evidence inculpating McClurge, includ-
    ing: (1) fibers taken from Lewis’s clothing matched those
    of carpet in the home of McClurge’s girlfriend in Jackson,
    Michigan (to which McClurge had brought the victim);
    (2) the ends of the duct tape used to bind Lewis matched
    precisely the ends on a role of duct tape seized from
    2
    As noted ante, this opinion refers to Terrance McClurge as
    “McClurge” and to his cousin, Alvertis McClurge, as “Alvertis.”
    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333                                   5
    McClurge ’s bedroom; and (3) a gold necklace belonging
    to Lewis was recovered from the back of a car registered
    to McClurge’s mother in which Lewis had at one time
    been confined.
    B. The Criminal Proceedings
    On August 26, 1999, a grand jury in the Northern Dis-
    trict of Illinois returned a three-count superseding in-
    dictment against McClurge, Carlisle, and Alvertis. Counts
    one and two charged the three men with kidnapping
    and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, in violation of 18
    U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)-(2), (c). Count three charged McClurge
    and Carlisle with using, carrying, and brandishing a
    firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Marks and Cannon
    entered pleas of guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit
    kidnapping and agreed to testify for the government
    pursuant to a plea agreement.
    Prior to trial, McClurge moved for severance of his trial
    from that of his co-defendant Alvertis, arguing that as
    McClurge and Alvertis would be presenting mutually
    exclusive defenses that might inculpate one another, both
    theories of defense could not be accepted by the jury.
    McClurge’s theory of defense was that he was not in-
    volved in the kidnapping, while Alvertis’s defense was
    to admit his participation in the kidnapping, but to ar-
    gue that McClurge forced him at gunpoint to participate.
    McClurge’s attorney renewed his severance motion the
    morning of trial, several times throughout the trial, and
    again at the conclusion of testimony. On each occasion the
    district court denied the motion relying on the Supreme
    Court’s holding in Zafiro v. United States, 
    506 U.S. 534
    (1993), which held that the fact that defenses may be
    “antagonistic” does not, of itself, necessitate severance,
    and furthermore that McClurge had offered no more than
    that his and Alvertis’s defenses would be antagonistic.
    6                                   Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    At trial, Marks testified about his knowledge of the
    events surrounding the kidnapping and the participa-
    tion of the defendants McClurge, Carlisle and Alvertis. On
    cross-examination, Marks invoked his Fifth Amendment
    right against self-incrimination in response to a total of
    four questions, posed by attorneys representing McClurge
    and Carlisle, concerning his relationship with Eiland
    (the friend who rode in the car with Marks and McClurge
    the evening of December 8 and the owner of one of the
    cellular telephones referred to heretofore as being used to
    make the ransom calls).3 The judge sustained objections
    to these questions and later denied a motion to strike
    Marks’s testimony.
    The first time Marks invoked his Fifth Amendment right
    was during his cross-examination by Carlisle’s attorney.
    When asked “Well, you have seen him [Eiland] kill some-
    body, haven’t you?,” Marks took the Fifth. The district
    court responded by instructing counsel to move forward
    with a different line of questioning. The other three times
    Marks refused to answer arose during cross-examination
    by counsel for McClurge. While Marks answered most of
    the questions posed to him, he pleaded the Fifth to the
    following three questions: (1) “[Y]ou covered up crimes
    for Antwon Eiland before, haven’t you?”; (2) “[Y]ou and
    Antwon Eiland have engaged in other kidnappings, haven’t
    you?”; and (3) “What about that shooting, did you cover up
    for him then?” The government objected to the line of
    questioning and the objection was sustained by the trial
    judge.
    The jury found McClurge and Carlisle guilty on all three
    counts of the indictment and acquitted Alvertis of all
    charges. After the verdict, but prior to sentencing, Mc-
    3
    Eiland was not charged with any crime in connection with the
    kidnapping.
    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333                                    7
    Clurge filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly
    discovered evidence, arguing that he had learned after trial
    that Marks, the government’s witness, was a suspect in
    an unrelated investigation concerning the murder of a
    drug dealer, and that this information potentially relat-
    ing to the impeachment of a key witness should have
    been made known to the defendant. The trial court denied
    the motion for a new trial on the grounds that the infor-
    mation had been known to McClurge prior to trial (and
    thus was not “newly discovered”) and that the informa-
    tion, even if considered “newly discovered,” would not have
    had a conceivable bearing on the outcome of the trial.
    McClurge was subsequently sentenced to concurrent
    terms of 360 months on counts 1 and 2, and a consecutive
    term of 60 months on count 3. Carlisle was sentenced
    to concurrent terms of 195 months on counts 1 and 2 and
    a consecutive term of 60 months on count 3. McClurge
    and Carlisle appeal.
    II. DISCUSSION
    McClurge makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the trial
    court abused its discretion by not granting the sever-
    ance motion; (2) Marks’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment
    right against self-incrimination and the district court’s
    related limitation of the scope of cross-examination vio-
    lated his constitutional right to confront witnesses; and
    (3) the district court abused its discretion when it denied
    his motion for a new trial based on “newly discovered
    evidence.” Carlisle’s appeal raises only the issue of the
    court’s denial of his motion to strike Marks’s testimony
    after Marks invoked his Fifth Amendment rights on cross-
    examination.
    8                                   Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    A. Motion for Severance
    McClurge argues that the trial court abused its discre-
    tion by refusing to sever his trial from that of his co-defen-
    dant Alvertis because of the “mutually antagonistic de-
    fense” presented by Alvertis. Specifically, McClurge argues
    that a jury could not accept both his defense and Alvertis’s
    defense to the kidnapping charges, because acceptance
    of one required the rejection of the other. McClurge’s
    defense theory was that he was not involved in the kid-
    napping; Alvertis’s defense, meanwhile, was premised on
    the theory that McClurge had coerced Alvertis into par-
    ticipating at gunpoint.
    We review the trial court’s decision to deny a motion
    to sever trials for abuse of discretion. United States v.
    Mietus, 
    237 F.3d 866
    , 873 (7th Cir. 2001). In conspiracy
    cases, “there is a strong interest in trying defendants
    who have been jointly indicted in a single trial.” United
    States v. Blassingame, 
    197 F.3d 271
    , 286 (7th Cir. 1999)
    (holding that one trial applicable to each defendant is
    preferred over two because joint trials reduce the burdens
    on the judiciary, prosecutors, and witnesses, because of
    the extra expenses incurred in two trials, and because
    they reduce the chance that each defendant will attempt
    to create reasonable doubt by blaming an absent cocon-
    spirator). In all but the “most unusual circumstances,” the
    risk of prejudice arising from a joint trial is “outweighed
    by the economies of a single trial in which all facets of
    the crime can be explored once and for all.” 
    Id. (quota- tion
    omitted).
    McClurge initially argues that severance is required
    whenever the defense theory of one defendant contradicts
    the defense of another defendant in such a way that the
    jury’s acceptance of one defense precludes acceptance of
    the other. McClurge’s argument is supported neither by
    logic nor case law. First, McClurge’s defense and Alvertis’s
    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333                                     9
    defense were not “mutually antagonistic.” While Alvertis’s
    was hostile to McClurge’s, the converse was not true.
    Second, even if we were to assume the defenses were
    “mutually antagonistic,” McClurge’s theory runs contrary
    to the law of this circuit. As has been made clear on sev-
    eral occasions, the presentation of mutually antagonistic
    defenses “is not sufficient grounds to require severance”
    of trials:
    There is a preference in the federal system for joint
    trials of defendants who are indicted together. A dis-
    trict court should grant severance . . . only if the
    joint trial “compromise[d] a specific trial right of one
    of the defendants, or prevent[ed] the jury from mak-
    ing a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.” [quot-
    ing 
    Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 538-39
    .] Even a showing that
    two defendants have “mutually antagonistic defenses,”
    that is, that the jury’s acceptance of one defense pre-
    cludes any possibility of acquittal for the other defen-
    dant, is not sufficient grounds to require a severance
    unless the defendant also shows prejudice to some
    specific trial right.
    
    Mietus, 237 F.3d at 873
    (emphasis added). See also United
    States v. Wilson, 
    237 F.3d 827
    , 835-36 (7th Cir. 2001), cert.
    denied, 
    122 S. Ct. 97
    (2001); United States v. Ramirez, 
    45 F.3d 1096
    , 1100-01 (7th Cir. 1995).
    McClurge’s next argument is that he was “unduly preju-
    diced” by Alvertis’s coercion defense, in that two items of
    “evidence” were elicited during testimony that would have
    been inadmissible in a trial of McClurge alone. The first
    item to which McClurge objects is a statement, elicited
    by Alvertis’s attorney during his cross-examination of co-
    defendant Cannon, that Cannon had told the FBI that
    he had once “done time” for McClurge. The judge allowed
    the question, over an objection by McClurge’s attorney that
    it was impermissible character evidence, on the grounds
    10                                 Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    that it simply showed Cannon’s “prior involvement with
    McClurge [and] with drugs.” The trial transcript clearly
    demonstrates that McClurge’s attorney (despite his ob-
    jection) never requested a limiting instruction, and the
    question was allowed, with the judge reminding the jury
    “that there are no charges involving drugs in this case,”
    and that the testimony was being allowed “for other pur-
    poses.”
    This ruling is reviewed under an abuse of discretion
    standard. See Okai v. Verfuth, 
    275 F.3d 606
    , 610 (7th Cir.
    2001). “The district court’s determination of the admissi-
    bility of evidence is treated with great deference because
    of the trial judge’s first-hand exposure to the witnesses
    and the evidence as a whole, and because of his familiarity
    with the case and ability to gauge the likely impact of the
    evidence in the context of the entire proceeding.” United
    States v. Denberg, 
    212 F.3d 987
    , 992 (7th Cir. 2000) (quota-
    tion omitted). Here, where the record reflects that the
    judge specifically limited the scope of cross-examination
    on this point to a single question concerning Cannon’s
    “prior relationships” upon a proper motion by the defen-
    dant, we will not disturb the trial court’s discretion.
    The second item of “evidence” to which McClurge objects
    is a reference, by Alvertis’s attorney in his closing argu-
    ment, to an FBI report that summarized an interview
    between FBI agents and Alvertis. The prosecution used this
    report when cross-examining Alvertis in an effort to
    establish that Alvertis’s trial testimony differed from his
    statements to the FBI. In his brief, McClurge claims the
    reference to the report in the closing argument introduced
    “improper lawyer testimony” and “inadmissible hearsay”
    into McClurge’s trial. As McClurge’s counsel did not ob-
    ject to the FBI report during Alvertis’s cross-examination
    or during the closing argument by Alvertis’s lawyer, we
    review the judge’s allowing the reception of the statement
    in evidence under the “plain error” standard of review.
    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333                                    11
    United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 732 (1993). Upon
    review, we are convinced that the comments made by
    Alvertis’s attorney were a proper comment on the lack
    of impeachment value contained in the FBI report that
    had been used to cross-examine his client and that the
    district judge did not commit error when he granted
    permission for the statement to be made.
    Even were we to find that the trial judge erred when
    denying McClurge’s severance motion, the law is clear
    that misjoinder of defendants can be harmless error if
    the jury was appropriately instructed to give “separate
    consideration to each individual defendant and to each
    separate charge against him,” 
    Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 541
    ,
    and if the evidence against the defendant complaining
    of joinder was “overwhelming.” See United States v.
    Todosijevic, 
    161 F.3d 479
    , 485 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Our decision
    [affirming] joinder allows us to dispense with [the de-
    fendant’s] claim that the trial judge erred when he denied
    [the] motion to sever.”) In the present case, the trial judge
    properly instructed the jury as follows:
    You will note that in the instructions I often refer to
    “the defendant you are then considering,” and that
    is because each count of the indictment charges
    each defendant with having committed a separate
    offense. Each count and the evidence relating to it
    should be considered separately . . . . Your verdict of
    guilty or not guilty of an offense charged in one
    count should not control your decision as to any other
    count. Your verdict of guilty or not guilty of an of-
    fense charged against one defendant should not con-
    trol your decision as to any other defendant.
    (Tr. at 1658-59.) The jury instruction directs the jury
    that with assessment of guilt, the jury must find each
    and every defendant not guilty or guilty beyond a reason-
    able doubt as to each element of the crime charged. Such
    12                                 Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    an instruction “suffice[s] to cure any possibility of preju-
    dice” presented by mutually antagonistic defenses be-
    cause juries “are presumed to follow their instructions.”
    
    Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540-41
    . We are convinced that the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    McClurge’s motion for severance.
    B. Marks’s Invocation of the Fifth Amendment
    McClurge and Carlisle argue that the district court
    abused its discretion when it denied their joint motion to
    strike Marks’s direct testimony. The appellants contend
    they were unable to introduce evidence of Marks’s past
    criminal associations with Eiland when Marks invoked
    his Fifth Amendment constitutional privilege and refused
    to answer questions about his relationship with Eiland.
    The appellants conclude that they were denied their
    Sixth Amendment rights to confront their accuser when
    the court did not order Marks to answer these four ques-
    tions and when it allowed Marks’s testimony on direct to
    stand.
    We generally review a trial court’s decision to limit the
    scope of cross-examination under the “abuse of discretion”
    standard. When the limitation directly implicates the
    Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, however, we
    conduct a “de novo” review. See United States v. Robbins,
    
    197 F.3d 829
    , 844 (7th Cir. 1999). The situation presented
    in this case requires courts to balance two competing
    interests: the witness’s Fifth Amendment right against
    self-incrimination and the defendant’s Sixth Amendment
    right to confront his accusers.
    A criminal defendant’s right to confront his accusers
    is basic under the Sixth Amendment. Pointer v. Texas,
    
    380 U.S. 400
    , 401 (1965). The confrontation clause, how-
    ever, does not guarantee “cross-examination that is effec-
    tive in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense
    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333                                      13
    may wish.” Delaware v. Fensterer, 
    474 U.S. 15
    , 20 (1985)
    (per curiam). The Fifth Amendment provides, inter alia,
    that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal
    case to be a witness against himself.” See, e.g., McNeil
    v. Wisconsin, 
    501 U.S. 171
    , 176 (1991). While the Sixth
    Amendment confrontation right may be limited by a wit-
    ness’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against
    self-incrimination, a court must exercise vigilance so as
    not to emasculate the right of cross-examination. See
    United States v. Zapata, 
    871 F.2d 616
    , 623 (7th Cir. 1989).
    When determining the constitutional implications of a
    witness’s refusal to answer questions, courts have prop-
    erly drawn a distinction between cross-examination ques-
    tions that are directly related to the witness’s direct testi-
    mony and cross-examination questions that are merely
    collateral to the witness’s direct testimony, such as “credi-
    bility.” 
    Zapata, 871 F.2d at 624
    .
    The four questions Marks refused to answer clearly dealt
    with issues collateral to the culpability of McClurge and
    Carlisle. The trial transcript demonstrates that Marks
    was asked whether he had ever seen Eiland commit
    murder, whether he had ever kidnapped anyone else
    with Eiland, and (twice) whether he had ever covered up
    any of Eiland’s crimes. (Tr. at 967, 975, 983.) Marks had
    already testified on direct about his relationship with
    Eiland (Tr. at 706-18, 799), but had limited that discus-
    sion to the time and events surrounding the kidnapping
    referred to herein. (Id.) Thus, questions surrounding
    Marks’s relationship with Eiland beyond that time period
    clearly were aimed at impugning Marks’s credibility, an
    attempt which must cease at the threshold of Marks’s own
    Fifth Amendment rights. The commentary to Rule 608(b)
    of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that the Rule
    constitutes a rejection of the doctrine . . . that any past
    criminal act relevant to credibility may be inquired
    into on cross-examination, in apparent disregard of
    14                                  Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    the privilege against self-incrimination. While it is
    clear that an ordinary witness cannot make a partial
    disclosure of incriminating matter and then invoke
    the privilege on cross-examination, no tenable con-
    tention can be made that merely by testifying he
    waives his right to foreclose inquiry on cross-examina-
    tion into criminal activities for the purpose of attack-
    ing his credibility. So to hold would reduce the privi-
    lege to a nullity.
    Fed. R. Evid. 608(b), Comm. Notes. Courts from other
    circuits have reached the same conclusion when pre-
    sented with similar facts. See, e.g., United States v. Brooks,
    
    82 F.3d 50
    , 54 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that a witness’s
    invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege on a “collat-
    eral” matter did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment
    right to confrontation); United States v. Berrio-Londono,
    
    946 F.2d 158
    , 158-59 (1st Cir. 1991) (affirming a refusal
    to strike the direct testimony of a coconspirator who
    asserted his Fifth Amendment right concerning prior
    drug deals with a coconspirator other than the defendant).
    C. Motion for a New Trial
    After the verdict, McClurge filed a motion requesting
    a new trial on the grounds of “newly discovered evidence.”
    McClurge claimed that he had learned from two sources
    that Marks, one of the government’s witnesses, had been
    “bragging” about killing a drug dealer named “Sporty” and
    that the FBI was in fact investigating Marks about
    Sporty’s murder. The trial judge denied the motion, hold-
    ing that this information would not have affected the
    outcome of the trial.
    We review the court’s refusal to grant a new trial on the
    basis of newly discovered evidence for abuse of discretion.
    United States v. Woodfolk, 
    197 F.3d 900
    , 904 (7th Cir.
    1999). To prevail on a motion for a new trial based on
    Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333                                   15
    newly discovered evidence, a defendant must demonstrate
    that (1) he became aware of the evidence only after trial;
    (2) he could not, by exercising due diligence, have discov-
    ered it sooner; (3) the evidence is material; and (4) in the
    event of a new trial, the evidence would probably lead to
    an acquittal. See United States v. Brumley, 
    217 F.3d 905
    ,
    909 (7th Cir. 2000).
    McClurge argues that the evidence that Marks was be-
    ing investigated for possible involvement in an unre-
    lated murder would have resulted in his acquittal be-
    cause it would somehow have conclusively established
    his defense theory that Marks was responsible for Lewis’s
    kidnapping. We are at a loss to understand how the al-
    leged “newly discovered evidence” could possibly have
    resulted in an acquittal. McClurge makes no allegation
    that the shooting of “Sporty” had anything whatsoever to
    do with the kidnapping of Lewis. Further, Marks had
    not been charged with any crime in connection with the
    murder of “Sporty,” and the record does not reveal what,
    if anything, ever came of the investigation. If anything,
    the evidence merely establishes that Marks was capable
    of committing violent crimes, but the jury was already
    aware of the fact that Marks was a career criminal who
    admitted his participation in the kidnapping of Lewis
    and his long history of dealing drugs. Furthermore, as the
    trial judge stated, the “new” evidence would not have
    had “any conceivable bearing” on the outcome of the trial
    because the weight of the evidence inculpating McClurge
    was overwhelming: (1) fibers taken from Lewis’s clothing
    matched those of carpet in the home of McClurge’s girl-
    friend in Jackson, Michigan; (2) the ends of the duct tape
    used to bind Lewis matched precisely the ends on a role
    of duct tape seized from McClurge’s bedroom; (3) Lewis’s
    gold necklace was found in the back of a Ford Explorer
    registered to McClurge’s mother inside of which Lewis
    had been confined; (4) Lewis identified McClurge’s voice
    16                                 Nos. 01-1858 & 01-2333
    as the voice of the man who had released him from captiv-
    ity in the Detroit area; and (5) the testimony of Marks,
    Cannon, and Avertis all identified McClurge as the leader
    of the kidnappers.
    In light of the overwhelming evidence of McClurge’s guilt
    and the absence of any connection between the alleged
    newly discovered evidence and McClurge’s charged crime,
    the district court did not abuse its discretion when deny-
    ing McClurge’s motion for a new trial.
    III. CONCLUSION
    Based on the record we hold that the district court did
    not abuse its discretion (1) in refusing to grant McClurge’s
    motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants;
    (2) in refusing to strike certain testimony that the de-
    fense claimed was unduly prejudicial and in violation of
    his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because the
    witness invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-
    incrimination; or much less (3) by refusing to grant a
    new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The convic-
    tions of defendant-appellants McClurge and Carlisle are
    AFFIRMED.
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    ________________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—11-27-02