## Facts

- Edward Emond was the village manager of Streamwood, Illinois, and held substantial authority over village contracting, development approvals, and related municipal decisions.
- The government presented evidence that Edward used his office to solicit and receive payments from individuals and businesses seeking favorable village action, including bribes and kickbacks tied to municipal projects and village business.
- The evidence also described a separate scheme involving fraudulent overbilling of a local county in connection with vehicle-rental transactions through entities associated with Edward and others.
- The government alleged that Edward and his wife, Maxine Emond, failed to report income derived from these schemes (and other income) on their federal income tax returns.
- Edward and multiple other individuals were charged in a multi-count federal prosecution that included racketeering-related offenses and tax offenses; Maxine was charged on tax counts connected to the unreported income.
- Many co-defendants entered guilty pleas and testified for the government at trial.
- Edward was tried in two separate federal trials arising from his Streamwood misconduct and the county vehicle-rental scheme; Maxine was tried with Edward in the first trial and convicted of tax offenses.
- Before the first trial, Edward, Maxine, and other defendants sought separate trials; the district court denied severance and tried the remaining defendants together.
- Edward appealed convictions from both trials, and Maxine appealed her convictions from the first trial, arguing (among other claims) that the denial of severance resulted in an unfair trial and that the evidence was insufficient on key elements of the offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying severance and conducting a joint trial of Edward, Maxine, and other defendants.
2. Whether the joint trial caused actual prejudice to Edward or Maxine through antagonistic defenses or evidentiary spillover that prevented the jury from reliably determining guilt on an individualized basis.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Edward’s racketeering-related convictions arising from his conduct as Streamwood’s village manager.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the tax convictions, including whether Maxine willfully participated in tax evasion based on unreported income.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Edward and Maxine Emond.
- The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and that defendants failed to show actual prejudice from the joint trial.
- The court concluded that the jury could evaluate the evidence separately as to each defendant and count, and that limiting instructions and the organization of the proof supported a fair joint trial.
- The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on the corruption and racketeering-related counts tied to Edward’s misuse of his municipal office.
- The court upheld the tax convictions, concluding that the evidence permitted a finding that the unreported income was taxable and that the defendants acted willfully, including as to Maxine.

## Legal Principles

- Joint trials of defendants indicted together are generally preferred when charges arise from related acts and proof overlaps; separate trials are not required simply because evidence is stronger against one defendant.
- A defendant seeking severance must show actual prejudice from joinder; appellate review of severance rulings is highly deferential and focuses on whether the joint trial was fundamentally unfair.
- Defenses are not grounds for severance merely because they differ or point blame; severance based on antagonistic defenses requires a conflict so sharp that acceptance of one defense necessarily requires rejection of the other in a way that blocks a reliable verdict.
- Evidence “spillover” does not require severance if the jury can reasonably separate the evidence by defendant and by count, particularly where the court instructs jurors to consider each count and each defendant individually.
- A governmental entity may qualify as a RICO “enterprise,” and repeated acts of corruption carried out through an official position can support a finding of a racketeering pattern when the acts are related and show continuity.
- Tax evasion requires proof of a tax due and owing and willfulness; willfulness may be shown through circumstantial evidence, including concealment and handling of substantial unreported income.

## Conclusion

United States v. Emond affirmed convictions arising from Edward Emond’s corruption as Streamwood’s village manager and related unreported income on federal tax returns, holding that the joint trial did not cause actual prejudice warranting severance and that the evidence supported the racketeering-related and tax-evasion verdicts, including Maxine Emond’s tax convictions.


United States v. Emond, 935 F.2d 1511 (1991)