## Facts

- Collin Hawkins, a convicted felon, was accused of taking part in a carjacking of livery cab driver Rueben King in Baltimore.
- King identified Hawkins as one of the carjackers and said he recognized him from prior casual contact in the neighborhood.
- More than two weeks later, police investigating a separate matter located and arrested Hawkins.
- When arrested, Hawkins had a firearm on his person; this firearm was not the same firearm allegedly used during the carjacking.
- The United States charged Hawkins with: (I) carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119), (II) brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence tied to the carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and (III) being a felon in possession of a firearm based on the later arrest (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
- Hawkins moved to sever Counts I and II from Count III, arguing improper joinder under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) or, alternatively, unfair prejudice under Rule 14(a).
- The district court denied severance, and a single jury trial proceeded on all counts.
- At trial, Hawkins conceded guilt on the felon-in-possession count but contested the carjacking-related counts.
- The jury convicted Hawkins on all three counts, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the carjacking and § 924(c) counts (Counts I and II) were properly joined with the later felon-in-possession count (Count III) under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) as offenses of the “same or similar character,” based on the “same act or transaction,” or connected as parts of a “common scheme or plan.”
2. If Count III was misjoined, whether the joinder error was harmless or instead required vacating the convictions on Counts I and II due to spillover prejudice.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held that Count III (felon in possession of a firearm) was improperly joined with Counts I and II under Rule 8(a).
- The court concluded the misjoinder was not harmless as to Counts I and II because trying the counts together created a serious risk that the jury would use Hawkins’s conceded felon status and gun possession to infer guilt on the disputed carjacking-related counts.
- The court affirmed the conviction on Count III.
- The court vacated the convictions on Counts I and II and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) permits joinder only when offenses are of the same or similar character, based on the same act or transaction, or connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.
- Offenses are not properly joined under Rule 8(a) merely because they share a broad theme (for example, both involving firearms); there must be a meaningful link such as the same episode, overlapping proof, or a shared plan.
- Misjoinder under Rule 8(a) is subject to harmless-error review; reversal is required if the improper joinder affected the defendant’s substantial rights.
- When one count would otherwise be tried separately, evidence admitted solely because of joinder (such as a defendant’s prior felony status or admitted gun possession) can cause spillover prejudice on other counts, especially where the government’s proof on those counts is contested and turns on witness identification.
- If the joinder error did not affect the outcome on a particular count—such as where guilt is conceded and independently supported—the conviction on that count may be affirmed while other convictions are vacated.

## Conclusion

United States v. Hawkins holds that a felon-in-possession charge stemming from a later, unrelated arrest involving a different gun was improperly joined under Rule 8(a) with carjacking and § 924(c) charges arising from an earlier incident, and that the resulting spillover prejudice required vacating and remanding the carjacking-related convictions while leaving the felon-in-possession conviction intact.


United States v. Hawkins, 776 F.3d 200 (2015)