Full opinion text
CARNES, Circuit Judge: Appellants Francisco Novaton, Oscar Cuni, Jorge Lopez, Reynaldo Rodriguez, Mercedes Novaton, Leopoldo Rodriguez, Felipe Matamoros, Ramon Rosell, and Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug-related crimes that took place in 1993. They appeal, raising numerous issues regarding their convictions and sentences. We reverse the conviction of Ramon Rosell based on his involuntary absence from critical portions of the trial, and we also remand the case involving Reynaldo Rodriguez in order for the district court to attempt to reconstruct some missing exhibits of the record that apparently relate to one of his contentions. Otherwise, we affirm all of the convictions and sentences. I. BACKGROUND A. FACTS In September 1993, the Drag Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram-sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami. Investigators discovered that Appellant Mercedes Novaton was the record owner of the duplex, and that she lived there with her husband Appellant Francisco Novaton, her mother, and two teenage children. On October 5, 1993, investigators installed video surveillance equipment across the street from the Novaton residence. Later in October 1993, the agents investigating the Novaton residence obtained authority to intercept wire communications on various telephones used by people who were suspected of participating in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. During the course of the investigation, the agents monitored over 7,000 telephone calls (approximately 4,000 of which were transcribed). During many of the telephone calls, the co-conspirators used code words when referring to cocaine or to money. By monitoring the intercepted conversations and by conducting other surveillance, the investigators learned that several co-conspirators were engaged in the distribution of cocaine through various houses in Miami, including the Novaton residence. The agents also learned that two Miami police officers were involved in the cocaine operation. Surveillance showed that Officers Jorge Lopez and Reynaldo Rodriguez, both of whom are appellants in this case, made frequent visits to the residence (sometimes several times per day). The surveillance camera showed that police cars would drive by the residence throughout the day and would slow down as they passed. The Novaton residence also received calls from a telephone within the Miami Police Department located in a unit adjacent to Jorge Lopez’s office. By monitoring intercepted conversations, the agents were able to obtain information concerning the timing of certain drug transactions, and, on several occasions, the agents seized drugs from purchasers after they left the Novaton residence. On October 23, 1993, Appellant Ramon Rosell was observed bringing three kilograms of cocaine to the Novaton residence. The agents then followed two purchasers named “Tuna” and Jamie Jones after they left the Novaton residence carrying a brown paper bag. The agents stopped Jones’ vehicle, and seized the package containing three kilograms of cocaine. Following this arrest, Mercedes Novaton called Francisco Novaton, who was at a race track with Officers Rodriguez and Lopez, to tell him that Jones had been “caught with three.” At that point, Novaton returned to his residence with the two police officers. The video surveillance showed that Officer Lopez then walked up and down the street in front of the Nova-ton residence. Lopez also called to find out information concerning the company that had towed the seized car. On October 26, 1993, the agents learned of another cocaine transaction that was about to take place at the Novaton residence. After the purchaser left the Nova-ton residence, the agents followed him to a different, nearby residence. The agents searched the house, after obtaining consent, and found four kilograms of cocaine. Shortly thereafter, the agents intercepted telephone calls in which Francisco Novaton discussed this seizure with a co-conspirator. Officer Lopez called the Miami Police Department on that day and asked for a check of police activity at the Novaton residence. On November 1, 1993,' agents intercepted a telephone conversation between Appellant Humberto Rodriguez and Francisco Novaton in which Novaton asked Rodriguez to bring over “two cousins” and “two nieces.” In a call on the following day, Novaton and Rodriguez discussed “the green stuff’ and “lettuce.” The agents testified that these were coded references to cocaine and to money. On November 6, 1993, the agents monitoring the Novaton residence received information about another impending transaction. They observed an individual named Jose Verona arrive in a pickup truck at the Novaton residence. After-wards, Appellant Felipe Matamoros left the residence for a few minutes and then returned with a white bag. Appellant Leopoldo Rodriguez also arrived at the Novaton residence at about the same time, and he too was carrying a white bag. Ma-tamoros and Rodriguez placed these bags in Verona’s truck, and Verona left the Novaton residence. Verona returned home and took both bags into his house. He then got back into his truck with one of the bags and drove away. After observing this activity, the agents had the police stop Verona, ostensibly for speeding, and discovered eight kilograms of cocaine in the bag he had. On November 9, 1993, the agents monitored a telephone conversation between Mercedes Novaton and Officer Reynaldo Rodriguez, in which Novaton asked for information about the November 6 seizure. Rodriguez then came to the Novaton residence with information concerning it. Investigators learned during the course of the investigation that Appellant Oscar Cuni, who was the owner of a bar named the “Bowl Bar,” was a primary supplier for the cocaine operation run from the Nova-ton residence. On October 31, 1993, the agents intercepted a telephone conversation in which Cuni called to discuss Nova-ton’s purchase of sixty-five kilograms of cocaine (referred to as a “fifteen year old niece” and a “fifty year old grandmother”). Four days later, Cuni was observed leaving the Novaton residence and driving to a different house. Agents observed Cuni removing a box and bag from his car which he gave to some people he met in front of the house. The box and bag were placed in the trunk of the individuals’ ear. At that point, Cuni appeared to sort and count money in the trunk of the car. On several occasions, Officers Lopez and Rodriguez were observed providing escorts to individuals who were coming to or going from the Novaton residence. On one occasion, a conversation between Cuni and Francisco Novaton was intercepted in which Cuni informed Novaton that he did not need protection from Officer Lopez on that particular day. Officer Rodriguez also took steps on at least one occasion to determine whether the Novaton organization was under investigation. On November 17, 1993, he made a report of phantom drug delivery by other individuals in an effort to identify the undercover cars used by the police to investigate suspected drug deals. On November 20, 1993, Officers Rodriguez and Lopez again demonstrated their involvement in the conspiracy. On that day, surveillance and wire intercepts suggested that an individual named Junior Ayala planned to go to the Novaton residence to pick up drug proceeds from an earlier delivery. After departing, Ayala called Mercedes Novaton and informed her that he sensed that he was being followed, and had abandoned the car with the drug proceeds still in it. Novaton called her husband and Officers Lopez and Rodriguez to come help. Ayala and the proceeds were eventually successfully recovered and returned to the Novaton residence by the officers. That night, Rodriguez was treated to free food and drinks (and allegedly prostitutes) by Cuni at his Bowl Bar. The government contends that Rodriguez admitted in a post-arrest statement that he knew Ayala’s car contained drug proceeds, but Rodriguez denies having made such a statement. In the early morning hours of December 13, 1993, the agents executed a search warrant on the Novaton residence. Francisco and Mercedes Novaton were in the house. The agents found a scanner tuned to police frequencies on which they could hear the communications of fellow officers who were searching other locations in connection with this investigation. The agents also located 4.1 grams of cocaine in the Novaton residence. B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 27, 1994, a federal grand jury returned a 15-count, second superseding indictment charging these nine appellants and eight other defendants with various drug-related offenses. The indictment charged all of the defendants with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1). Francisco Novaton and Cuni were charged with operating a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 (Count 2). Francisco Nova-ton, Lopez, Reynaldo Rodriguez, Rosell, Mercedes Novaton, Humberto Rodriguez, Matamoros, and Leopoldo Rodriguez were charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on October 23, 1993, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 3), and the Novatons, Humberto Rodriguez, Leopoldo Rodriguez, and Matamoros were charged with committing that same crime on October 26, 1993 (Count 4). Those appellants were also charged, along with Cuni, with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on October 31, 1993 (Count 5). The Novatons, Lopez, and Reynaldo Rodriguez were charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on November 6,1993 (Count 6). Francisco Novaton and Leopoldo Rodriguez were charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on November 7, 1993 (Count 7). Francisco Novaton was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on November 18, 1993 (Count 8). Lopez and Reynaldo Rodriguez, the two Miami police officers who are appellants, were each charged with knowingly carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Counts 9 and 10). The indictment also charged some defendants who are not appellants in some of those counts and also in several additional counts. Finally, the indictment included 17 forfeiture counts against these appellants and other defendants. The appellants were tried jointly beginning on September 28, 1994 and ending on November 21, 1994. During the trial, the district court granted some of their motions for acquittal on certain counts of the indictment. On December 15, 1994, after 16 days of deliberations, the jury returned the following verdict as to the appellants: Francisco Novaton: guilty on Counts 1-7; Oscar Cuni: guilty on Counts 1 and 5, not guilty on Count 2; Jorge Lopez: guilty on Counts 1, 3-6, and 9; Reynaldo Rodriguez: guilty on Count 1, not guilty on Counts 3, 6, and 10; Mercedes Novaton: guilty on Counts 1 and 3-6; Ramon Rosell: guilty on Counts 1, 3, and 5; Humberto Rodriguez: guilty on Counts 1 and 5, not guilty on Counts 3 and 4; Leopoldo Rodriguez: guilty on Counts 1, 3, and 7; Felipe Matamoros: guilty on Count 1, not guilty on Counts 3-5. Thus, all of the appellants were convicted of the conspiracy count (Count 1), and all except Reynaldo Rodriguez and Matamo-ros were convicted on additional counts. Following sentence hearings, the district court sentenced the appellants as follows: Francisco Novaton: 360 months of imprisonment on each count to run concurrently, five years of supervised release as to Count 2, eight years of supervised release as to Counts 3 and 4, and ten years of supervised release as to Counts 1, 5, 6, and 7, all to run concurrently; Oscar Cuni: life imprisonment, ten years of supervised release as to each count to run concurrently; Jorge Lopez: 235 months of imprisonment as to Counts 1 and 3-6, to run concurrently, five years of supervised release as to those counts, sixty months of imprisonment as to Count 9 to run consecutively, and three years of supervised release as to that count; Reynaldo Rodriguez: 292 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release as to Count 1; Mercedes Novaton: 235 months of imprisonment as to each of Counts 1 and 3-6, to run concurrently, five years of supervised release as to each count, to run concurrently; Ramon Rosell: 235 months of imprisonment as to Counts 1, 3, and 5, to run concurrently, five years of supervised release as to Counts 1 and 5, and four years of supervised release as to Count 3, to run concurrently; Humberto Rodriguez: 262 months of imprisonment as to Counts 1 and 5, to run concurrently, five years of supervised release as to each count, to run concurrently; Leopoldo Rodriguez: 235 months of imprisonment as to Counts 1, 3, and 7, to run concurrently, five years of supervised release as to Counts 1 and 7, and four years of supervised release as to Count 3, to run concurrently; and Felipe Matamoros: 292 months of imprisonment as to Count 1, ten years of supervised release. Each of the appellants filed a timely notice of appeal challenging his or her conviction and/or sentence. II. DISCUSSION A. CUNI’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS WIRETAP EVIDENCE The first issue that we will discuss is whether certain evidence obtained from court-authorized wiretaps should have been suppressed by the trial court. Although several of the defendants filed motions to suppress in the district court, only Appellant Oscar Cuni presses this issue on appeal. He argues that the wiretap evidence should have been suppressed on Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), grounds because the affidavits used to obtain court authorization for the wiretaps contained material misrepresentations and omissions. The affidavits at issue were made by DEA Special Agent Lee Lucas in support of eight different applications for wiretaps, two of which were on cell phones possessed by Cuni. As grounds for probable cause, these affidavits explained that Francisco Novaton had been arrested for various drug-related offenses in the past, and that there was no record of his having been employed in the previous two years. The affidavits also stated that the video camera installed outside of the Novaton residence recorded vehicles frequently coming to and going from the Novaton residence during the day and evening, and various individuals with past narcotics convictions, including Cuni, frequenting the residence. Furthermore, Lucas’ affidavits contained information purportedly received from four confidential sources which confirmed narcotics activity at the Novaton residence. The affidavits explained that court-authorized trap and trace and pen register equipment indicated that the Novatons made or received over 2,500 telephone calls in the preceding month, including numerous calls to Juan Ignacio Novaton, an individual with an extensive drug-related criminal history, and to Touchdown Realty, a business suspected of having narcotics connections. Finally, the affidavits indicated that two Miami police officers, Lopez and Reynaldo Rodriguez, were suspected of facilitating the drug operation. The video camera recorded the frequent arrival and departure of police cars at the residence, and showed that police cars frequently drove past the house and slowed down. Also, the Novaton residence had received telephone calls from a Miami Police Department telephone adjacent to Lopez’s office. After Cuni and several other defendants filed their motion to suppress on Franks grounds, a magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing over the course of eleven days. Cuni and the others attacked the information provided by and about the confidential sources cited in the affidavits. In particular, Cuni pointed out that Agent Lucas failed to disclose that one of the three confidential sources who provided information about Cuni had been married to Cuni’s wife, was extremely jealous of Cuni, and had engaged in stalking. Furthermore, Cuni argued that two of the informants were business rivals of his. Cuni also argued that Agent Lucas’ affidavits were insufficient because they did not disclose adequate information about the informants’ criminal histories, including the fact that one of the informants had been convicted of lying to the police. Finally, Cuni argued that Agent Lucas’ affidavits misrepresented Cuni’s criminal history as “extensive” and had erroneously attributed to him a prior cocaine conviction, when in fact that prior conviction involved heroin. Following the hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. She found that the information provided by the confidential sources was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence, and that any omissions concerning animus on the part of the informants, benefits provided to the informants, or the prior criminal record of the informants were immaterial. The magistrate judge noted that a reviewing magistrate is aware that confidential informants “often are characterized by deal-making, [bad] motive and suffer from generally unsavory character,” and that, even in the absence of allegations to that effect in an affidavit, courts take those factors into consideration in determining whether probable cause exists. Furthermore, the magistrate judge found that the description of Cuni’s criminal history as “extensive” was not inaccurate and that the mischaracterization of Cuni’s conviction as cocaine-related, when it was actually heroin-related, was immaterial. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, agreed with each of her findings, and denied the motions to suppress. Following his conviction, Cuni moved for a new trial and renewed his motion to suppress the wiretap evidence used against him. He reasserted the grounds contained in his pretrial suppression motion, and also argued that trial testimony and post-trial statements from certain of the informants cited in Agent Lucas’ affidavits supported his motion. In particular, Cuni submitted affidavits from investigators and attorneys for Cuni and Novaton who stated that two of the informants had agreed to speak with them after the trial, and that those two informants denied having provided much of the information attributed to them in Agent Lucas’ affidavits and stated that little if any of the information provided to the agents was based on their personal knowledge. The magistrate judge conducted a three-day Franks hearing in response to the post-trial motion, after which she recommended denying Cuni’s motion. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied the motion for a new trial. On appeal, Cuni contends that the district court erred by not suppressing the wiretap evidence against him for four reasons. First, he argues that the affidavits contained material misrepresentations concerning the past cooperation and reliability of the informants. Agent Lucas’ affidavits contained the following representation (almost identical in all of the affidavits): [The law enforcement officers conducting the investigation] have received information from four (4) separate confidential sources (CSs) pertaining to a narcotics smuggling distribution organization .... In addition, the information provided by the CSs has proven reliable in the past.... CSs information has been corroborated by surveillance and police record checks. Cuni asserts that this statement is false because three of the four informants had not cooperated with the police in the past. He argues that the misrepresentation must have been deliberate because the wiretap applications were filed between October 19, 1993 and December 1, 1993, while Agent Lucas testified that two of the informants only began providing information in September and October 1993. Second, Cuni argues that the statement attributed to one of the informants was contradicted by that individual’s testimony at trial. The affidavit stated that the informant had observed Cuni unloading boxes from a van at the Novaton residence under the supervision of a police officer. The informant retreated from that statement during his trial testimony. Third, Agent Lucas’ affidavit, dated November 16, 1993, supporting the application for a wiretap on one of Cuni’s cell phones erroneously represented that Cuni had a prior conviction for cocaine trafficking, although the previous conviction actually related to heroin. Finally, Agent Lucas’ affidavits omitted facts concerning the criminal histories of the informants, including the fact that one of the informants had previously been convicted of lying to a police officer. Based on these alleged misrepresentations or omissions, Cuni argues that the district court erred by not suppressing the wiretap evidence. We review the district court’s findings of fact on a motion to suppress only for clear error, but review its application of law to those facts de novo. United States v. Jackson, 120 F.3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir.1997). In the present case, the district court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and the court did not err in denying Cuni’s motions to suppress. In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the Supreme Court set out the standards for considering an attack on the veracity of an affidavit filed in support of a search warrant. The Court stated that: There is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant. To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted ... is only that of the affi-ant, not of any nongovernmental informant. Finally, if these requirements are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required. On the other hand, if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing. Whether he will prevail at that hearing is, of course, another issue. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 98 S.Ct. at 2684-85. “In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.” Id. at 156, 98 S.Ct. at 2676. Of the four alleged deficiencies with Agent Lucas’ affidavits, three involve affirmative misrepresentations and one involves omissions. In order to be entitled to relief, Cuni must carry his burden of proving (1) that the alleged misrepresentations or omissions were knowingly or recklessly made by Agent Lucas, and (2) that the result of excluding the alleged misrepresentations and including the alleged omissions would have been a lack of probable cause for issuance of the warrants. United States v. Jenkins, 901 F.2d 1075, 1080 (11th Cir.1990). Cuni has failed to carry that burden. The first alleged misrepresentation pointed to by Cuni relates to the statement in the affidavits to the effect that the four informants who provided information in support of probable cause had proven reliable in the past. Cuni asserts, and the government does not dispute in its briefs to us, that three of the four informants had never before cooperated with law enforcement officials. Cuni argues that this misrepresentation was inherently false and made with reckless disregard for the truth in light of Agent Lucas’ subsequent testimony about when the informants began cooperating. The government responds that just because the informants had not cooperated in the past does not mean that the information they provided in connection with this case was unreliable. It also maintains that the misrepresentation was not material to the district court’s finding of probable cause and that Cuni did not show that the representation was knowingly or deliberately included in the affidavit. We find troubling Agent Lucas’ apparent misrepresentations concerning the past cooperation of the informants involved in this case. Although the government maintains that there was an absence of proof concerning the agent’s deliberateness or recklessness in making the misrepresentations, it is unclear how Agent Lucas could have made such statements of an affirmative character for which there was no basis without having acted either deliberately or recklessly. Accordingly, we will assume that this was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. However, Cuni’s argument stumbles on the second-step of the Franks test. The Supreme Court made it clear in Franks that in order to be entitled to relief a defendant must show not only that misrepresentations or omissions were intentionally or recklessly made, but also that, absent those misrepresentations or omissions, probable cause would have been lacking. That is the test of materiality, and materiality is essential no matter how deliberate or reckless the misrepresentations were. We do not believe that the statements concerning the past reliability of the informants, when viewed in the context of all the information contained in the affidavits, were material. Agent Lucas’ affidavits contained extensive factual detail which was independent of the informants’ statements and that supported probable cause. Although the magistrate judge did not directly address the alleged misrepresentations about past use of the informants, she did discuss whether there was sufficient corroboration of the informants’ statements, and found there was. The district court agreed and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and those findings of corroboration are not clearly erroneous. Under these circumstances, even assuming Agent Lucas’ statements concerning the informants’ past reliability were deliberately false and subtracting those statements from the affidavits, there was still ample showing of probable cause in the affidavits. Cuni’s second argument, that the statement attributed to one of the informants was contradicted by that individual’s testimony at trial, fares no better. The affidavit stated that the informant had observed Cuni unloading boxes from a van at the Novaton residence under the supervision of a police officer, but in his trial testimony, the informant retreated from that statement. However, the mere fact that an informant’s trial testimony contradicts information attributed to that informant in an affidavit supporting a warrant does not entitle a defendant to suppression. Instead, the defendant must show that it is the agent, and not the informant, who has made misrepresentations. On this point, the magistrate judge heard testimony from another agent corroborating Agent Lucas’ account of the information learned from the informants. Thereafter, the magistrate judge made factual findings, subsequently adopted by the district court, accepting the agents’ version of their conversations with the informants. The court also found that “Cuni ha[d] failed to show that Agent Lucas either lied or recklessly presented false testimony in the wiretap affidavit.” In light of the record and the superior opportunity of the magistrate judge to make credibility findings, we cannot say that these findings were clearly erroneous. Next, we turn to the Franks challenge based on the erroneous statement by Agent Lucas in his affidavits that Cuni had a previous cocaine-related conviction, when in fact Cuni’s prior conviction related to heroin. We agree with the district court that this error was completely immaterial to the finding of probable cause for the wiretaps. Cuni’s argument to the contrary is frivolous. Finally, Cuni argues that Agent Lucas should have included in his affidavits information concerning possible animus between the informants and Cuni as well as details about the informants’ criminal histories, including the fact that one of the informants had previously been convicted of lying to a police officer. The magistrate judge and district court found these alleged omissions did not entitle Cuni to suppression. With respect to the failure to provide information concerning possible animus, the district court observed that “judges are accustomed to dealing with information derived from informants, and are well aware that such information is often obtained in the context of personal rancor and mixed motives.” The court also noted that the agents had corroborated much of the information provided by the informants, thereby making the failure to inform the court of animus less material. Similarly, the magistrate judge noted that the failure to perform more thorough reviews of the informants’ criminal histories was a result of the fact that the investigation implicated Miami police officers, and, consequently, the agents involved were cautious not to call attention to the informants by digging into their criminal records. The magistrate judge, therefore, found that the failure to discover and disclose aspects of the informants’ criminal histories was not “an omission made with reckless disregard.” The district court adopted this finding. We conclude that, under the facts of this case, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Cuni had failed to carry his burden of showing that the alleged omissions relating to the informants’ criminal histories were either deliberate or reckless. Furthermore, in light of the other facts contained in the affidavits, the alleged omissions were immaterial to a finding of probable cause for the wiretaps. Therefore, Cuni’s Franks challenge fails. B. REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ’S MOTIONS TO SEVER Reynaldo Rodriguez, a former Miami police officer, contends that the district court erred by denying his motion, made pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 14, to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants. The ground urged in the motion was that separate trials were needed so that Rodriguez could obtain and utilize the testimony of co-defendants Francisco Novaton and Cuni. The district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge who recommended that it be denied without prejudice. Rodriguez filed objections to that report and recommendation and filed a renewed motion for severance. That renewed motion was supported by affidavits from Francisco Novaton and Cuni. After reviewing the Novaton and Cuni affidavits, the district court found that severance was not justified because the affidavits did not contain specific, exonerative facts and because the interest of judicial economy and preference for trying co-defendants together outweighed any prejudice to Rodriguez. Rodriguez again moved for severance during the trial, and the district court again denied his motion. Motions for severance are governed by Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That rule “requires a trial court to balance the rights of the defendants and the government to a trial that is free from the prejudice that may result from joint trials against the public’s interest in efficient and economic administration of justice.” United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 649 (11th Cir.1984). “Nevertheless, because of the well-settled principle that it is preferred that persons who are charged together should also be tried together, particularly in conspiracy cases, the denial of a motion for severance will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Cobb, 185 F.3d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir.1999) (citation and quotation omitted). Furthermore, “[a]ppellate courts are reluctant to second-guess trial court refusals to grant a severance,” and therefore, in order to show an abuse of discretion, a defendant must satisfy the “heavy burden” of demonstrating “compelling prejudice” from the denial of a motion to sever. Pepe, 747 F.2d at 650-51; see also Cobb, 185 F.3d at 1197 (noting that defendant must show “specific and compelling prejudice” in order to justify severance). This Circuit’s framework for analyzing a motion to sever is well-established. We have recognized that a defendant first must demonstrate: (1) a bona fide need for the testimony; (2) the substance of the desired testimony; (3) the exculpatory nature and effect of the desired testimony; and (4) that the co-defendant would indeed have testified at a separate trial. Cobb, 185 F.3d at 1197 (citations and quotations omitted). See also United States v. DeSimone, 660 F.2d 532, 539 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (same); Byrd v. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 1017, 1019-20 (5th Cir.1970). If a defendant makes such a showing, then: [A] court must still (1) examine the significance of the testimony in relation to the defendant’s theory of the case; (2) assess the extent of prejudice caused by the absence of the testimony; (3) consider judicial administration and economy; and (4) give weight to the timeliness of the motion. Cobb, 185 F.3d at 1197 (citations and quotations omitted). See also DeSimone, 660 F.2d at 540 (same). It is within this framework that we review whether the district court properly denied Rodriguez’s motions for severance. This Court’s cases addressing severance motions have often looked hard at the substance of the affidavits proffered by the co-defendant who purportedly would testify in a separate trial. For example, in Pepe, the Court considered the effect of affidavits proffered by a co-defendant of Albert “Chink” Facchione in which the co-defendant stated that he could testify that Facchione had not conspired with him to carry out the act charged in the indictment and had not, to his knowledge, engaged in wrongdoing. Pepe, 747 F.2d at 650. After reviewing the proffered testimony, the Court concluded that: [The testimony] consisted almost exclusively of bare exculpatory denials, devoid of any specific exonerative facts. ... [T]he testimony was of dubious credibility because it was in no way contrary to [the co-defendant’s] own interests. Moreover, judicial economy weighed heavily against severance in this complex case. We thus conclude that Facchione failed to carry his “heavy burden” of showing “compelling prejudice” and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever his case. Id. at 651 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). See also DeSimone, 660 F.2d at 540 (denying motion where affidavits contained no “specific and exonerative facts,” but instead only self-serving, conclusory allegations). Therefore, statements concerning the testimony that would become available by severing trials must be specific and exonerative, rather than conclusory or self-serving, in order to justify severance. This point is borne out in those cases in which we have found failure to sever to be an abuse. In United States v. DiBernardo, we held that a district court correctly granted a motion to sever where a co-defendant proffered an affidavit stating he would testify that he had acted alone with regard to much of the charged criminal activity, and that the defendants who were seeking severance had no knowledge of his actions. 880 F.2d 1216, 1228 (11th Cir.1989). We noted that such evidence incriminated the affiant and was significant to the defense because it would have specifically rebutted a crucial element of the prosecution’s case. Id.; see also Cobb, 185 F.3d at 1198-99 (finding ah abuse of discretion where a co-defendant would have testified that he had not shared the proceeds of a bank robbery with the defendant, and where the only evidence against defendant was testimony by a witness who allegedly saw defendant receive share of proceeds). Our review of the affidavits submitted in support of Rodriguez’s motion convince us that they do not contain the type of specific and exonerative facts which would establish that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motions. Almost all of the statements contained in the affidavits by Novaton and Cuni consist of conclusory denials of the charges in the indictment. For example, one such statement reads that Novaton would testify “[t]hat REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ did not conspire with me, or to my knowledge with anyone else, to possess with intent to distribute cocaine at any time in 1993, as alleged in Count One of the Superseding Indictment in this case.” This is precisely the type of self-serving statement which we have found to be insufficient to show “compelling prejudice” requiring a new trial. Other than conclusory statements, which are neither contrary to the affiants’ penal interests nor contain any other indicia of credibility, the only factual statement contained in either affidavit is one statement by Novaton attempting to explain the frequency of Rodriguez’s visits to the Nova-ton residence. Novaton’s affidavit says “[t]hat on the occasions when REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ visited my residence ... in 1993, he did so to eat, use the bathroom facilities, engage in Santería worship, and for other personal reasons. He did not engage in any illegal narcotics activity in my residence at any time.” This lone statement in no way incriminates the affiant, and it does not present the type of “specific and exonerative” facts necessary to require a severance. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rodriguez’s motions for severance, particularly in light of the substantial systemic interest in handling this complex, conspiracy case in one trial (which lasted two months). C. REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ’S RULE 806 MOTION TO ADMIT CO-DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVITS IN ORDER TO IMPEACH CO-CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY STATEMENTS Reynaldo Rodriguez also contends that the district court erred by not permitting him to introduce the Novaton and Cuni affidavits submitted in support of his motions for severance as evidence at trial in order to impeach co-conspirator hearsay statements by them which were admitted. Rodriguez argues that the affidavits were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 806, which provides that: When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined in Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E) [which includes co-conspirator statements], has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported, by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if de-clarant had testified at trial as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant’s hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination. Fed.R.Evid. 806 (bracketed material added). The government responds that the affidavits were not admissible under Rule 806 because they were not inconsistent with any of the co-conspirator statements admitted at trial. Athough acknowledging that numerous co-conspirator statements were admitted, mostly in the form of taped conversations from the wiretaps, the government argues that those statements were not admissions of Rodriguez’s complicity in the co-conspirators’ crimes, but instead were statements that were part of the commission of the conspiracy and other underlying crimes. Because, it contends, no inconsistent statements were admitted, there was nothing to be impeached by the affidavits. Ater the parties presented oral arguments in this case, we requested that Rodriguez provide the Court with supplemental briefing on the Rule 806 issue providing us with record cites to the co-conspirator statements admitted at trial which, in his view, would have been impeached by the Novaton and Cuni affidavits that he sought to have admitted. While attempting to respond to our request, Rodriguez discovered that although approximately 100 tape recordings (primarily of conversations intercepted by wiretaps) and accompanying transcripts and translations had been introduced as exhibits at trial, none of those exhibits were included in the record on appeal. Ater we were informed by Rodriguez that the record on appeal was incomplete, we ordered the parties to discuss the missing portions of the record, and to tell us about the status of the record. In response, we were informed by Rodriguez that neither the district court clerk’s office, nor our clerk’s office, knew where the missing trial exhibits were. Rodriguez further indicated that the United States Attorney’s Office was unaware of the location of the tapes and transcripts, and did not have duplicates of those trial exhibits, although the DEA apparently had at least some duplicate tapes, but no transcripts. Although Rodriguez’s counsel attempted to reconstruct some of the missing transcripts based on records he had, the Assistant United States Attorneys working on this appeal were initially unable or unwilling to stipulate to the authenticity of those transcripts because they had not been involved in the trial of the case. All of the prosecutors who participated in the trial have left the United States Attorney’s Office. After being informed of this situation, our clerk’s office inquired of the district court clerk’s office concerning the trial exhibits, and was informed that the voluminous trial exhibits had been returned to the United States Attorney’s Office at some time after the conclusion of trial, and that the district court clerk’s office had not maintained copies of the exhibits nor had it included any of the exhibits in the record on appeal. We urged the parties to do more to solve the problem of the missing exhibits. Later, we were informed that the United States Attorney’s Office had located some tapes from which the missing transcripts might be reconstructed. Hoping to avoid the necessity of an evidentiary hearing, which would obviously require a remand, we directed counsel for Reynaldo Rodriguez and the government to meet and attempt to reach a stipulation about the contents of the missing exhibits. They made some progress but were not entirely successful. Some reconstructed transcripts have now been submitted to us, and the counsel for Rodriguez and the government have stipulated that those transcripts are true and correct copies of some of the missing trial exhibits. Rodriguez insists, however, that not all of the transcripts have been reconstructed and submitted to us, and apparently contends that some of the missing ones are or may be relevant to his Rule 806 issue. Absent any basis for concluding to the contrary, we will assume for present purposes that is true. It is against this background that we are asked to decide whether it was an abuse of discretion for the district court not to admit into evidence the two affidavits that Reynaldo Rodriguez wanted to use to impeach co-conspirator statements contained in transcripts of conversations that were admitted into evidence. In a recent case, we recognized that under some circumstances a district court’s failure to admit affidavit statements which would impeach co-conspirator statements admitted at trial is reversible error. See United States v. Grant, 256 F.3d 1146, 1152-1156 (11th Cir.2001). We held that under Rule 806, “[t]he test is whether the out-of-court statements would have been admissible for impeachment purposes had the co-conspirator statements been delivered from the witness stand by the co-conspirator himself, not as hearsay about what he said during the conspiracy but as contemporaneous in-court statements.” Id. at 1154. We are loath to decide this issue without assurance that every effort, including an inquiry by the district court, has been made to reconstruct all the missing trial exhibits that are relevant to the issue. Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure places the burden on appellants to ensure that the record on appeal is properly prepared and forwarded to the court of appeals. However, in this case it appears that the problems with the record are not due to any lack of diligence or care on the part of Rodriguez. He made a timely request to the district court clerk’s office that the entire record be included in the record on appeal. Through no fault of his own, that was not done, and the relevant trial exhibits were instead returned to the government. Also, through no fault of Rodriguez, the government subsequently misplaced those exhibits. Under these circumstances, we will not hold Rodriguez accountable for the deficiencies in the record. We previously have considered what to do when an incomplete record on appeal is supplied to us, and have stated that “[i]f the defendant is represented by the same attorney at trial and on appeal, a new trial may be granted only if the defendant can show that the failure to record and preserve a specific portion of the trial visits a hardship on him and prejudices his appeal.” United States v. Medina, 90 F.3d 459, 462-63 (11th Cir.1996). A criminal defendant’s entitlement to a new trial based on the incompleteness of the record, however, is “premised upon the district court’s inability to reconstruct the record.” United States v. Cashwell, 950 F.2d 699, 704 (11th Cir.1992). A reconstructed record, even if not identical to the original trial transcript and exhibits, will provide a defendant with sufficient due process as long as it “can accord effective appellate review” of the issues raised on appeal by the defendant. Id. at 703. In this case, the district court should make findings about whether there are in fact any missing trial exhibits that are relevant to Reynaldo Rodriguez’s Rule 806 issue. If it finds that there are, the district court may be able to reconstruct, as provided in Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, any missing trial exhibits that are relevant to the Rule 806 issue, which Rodriguez and the government have not been able to supply through stipulation. The court should at least attempt to do so. Therefore, we will remand this part of the case involving Reynaldo Rodriguez to the district court in order for it to make findings about whether there are any missing trial exhibits that are relevant to the Rule 806 issue, and for it to attempt to reconstruct any that are relevant. See United States v. Preciado-Cordobas, 923 F.2d 159, 160-61 (11th Cir.1991) (remanding for reconstruction of closing arguments); United States v. Taylor, 607 F.2d 153, 154 (5th Cir.1979) (remanding for reconstruction of trial transcript). On remand, the district court may consider whatever evidence or testimony it sees fit for these purposes. Preciado-Cordobas, 923 F.2d at 160-61. Because the only issues remaining relate to Reynaldo Rodriguez’s Rule 806 argument, the district court need only concern itself with the portions of any missing trial exhibits that contain co-conspirator statements by Cuni and Francisco Novaton that Rodriguez contends were impeached by their proffered affidavits. Although remanding this case for findings and for a reconstruction of any relevant missing trial exhibits has the unfortunate effect of prolonging this already protracted litigation, we see no alternative that will provide Rodriguez with the due process protection to which he is entitled. Remanding the case will also give the district court an opportunity to reconsider its ruling on the Rule 806 issue in light of our Grant decision, which it did not have at the time of trial. We imply no view on whether Grant controls this case, but if the district court after reconstructing the missing transcripts and reconsidering the issue in light of Grant does decide that Rodriguez is entitled to a new trial, it should grant one. On the other hand, if the district court finds that there are missing trial exhibits, which it cannot reconstruct, that are relevant to Reynaldo Rodriguez’s Rule 806 issue, that court should decide in the first instance whether the missing exhibits prejudice Rodriguez by denying him effective appellate review within the meaning of our Medina and Cashwell decisions. Whatever the district court decides about either or both issues, the losing party may appeal. In light of that possibility, specific factfindings by the district court will be appreciated by this Court. D. ROSELL’S ABSENCE FROM TRIAL Next, we turn to Appellant Ramon Ro-sell’s contention that the district court erred by going forward with his trial even though he was absent due to health problems. Rosell argues that the court should have either granted a continuance, severed him from the trial, or granted a mistrial in light of his absence. His position is that the court’s failure to do so resulted in the violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We agree. The eight-week-long trial in this case started on September 28, 1994. Rosell was in attendance at the trial from that time up until November 10, 1994. During a break in the late afternoon of that day, Rosell became ill and collapsed in the corridor of the courthouse. Emergency services were called, and Rosell was taken to the hospital by ambulance. After the district court was informed about these events, the court stated that it did not want to continue with trial if Rosell was unavailable and wished to attend. Because the evidence being presented by the prosecution at that time had nothing to do with Rosell’s part of the case, however, his counsel agreed to go forward and waived Rosell’s right to be present. On November 14, the next day of trial, Rosell’s counsel informed the court that Rosell initially had been hospitalized, but that he had been released an hour before the trial reconvened that day. Again because the evidence was unrelated to Ro-sell, his counsel waived Rosell’s right to be present and requested permission to allow Rosell to stay home. The court agreed. The next day, Rosell’s counsel reported to the court that Rosell was physically unable to participate in the trial, and provided a letter to the court from Rosell’s doctor concerning his condition. Rosell’s counsel also consented to the government’s discussing Rosell’s condition with his doctor. For the first time, Rosell’s counsel indicated to the court that a continuance might be necessary as portions of the trial relevant to Rosell’s part of the case were about to begin. Counsel indicated that he was willing to cooperate and allow the trial to go forward with respect to matters unrelated to Rosell, but reiterated that Ro-sell did not waive his right to be present for aspects of the trial germane to him. The following morning, Rosell was still absent from the trial. The government reported that it had spoken with Rosell’s doctor, and that the doctor did not have enough information to know whether Ro-sell could attend the trial. The doctor indicated that an X-ray would be necessary in order to determine Rosell’s condition. Rosell’s counsel informed the court that he had difficulties communicating with his client because of the pain that Rosell was suffering and because of his medication. Rosell’s counsel moved for continuance at that point in time so that an X-ray could be taken in order to determine the severity of Rosell’s condition. The district court denied the motion for continuance finding that, based on the information that it had at that time, Rosell’s absence was voluntary. The court did say that Rosell could present evidence to show the contrary. The district court also denied Rosell a two-hour continuance so that his doctor could be brought into court and questioned about Rosell’s condition. The court indicated that Rosell’s counsel could skip the examination of the next witness if he needed to try to get more information about his client’s condition. Counsel resisted that option, however, because he had been told that information relevant to Rosell would be brought out during the cross-examination of that witness. Rosell’s counsel then requested a continuance of an hour and twenty minutes so that he could go to his client’s home, and attempt to bring him to the courthouse so the judge could see his condition. The court denied that request. Rosell then made a motion for a mistrial, which the district court denied. Later that afternoon, Rosell attended the trial for approximately an hour and twenty minutes. His counsel informed the court that he and Rosell’s brother had to carry Rosell into court. Counsel informed the court that Rosell felt dizzy and uncomfortable as a result of the pain he suffered and the pain killers and other medications that he was taking, and that Rosell was sleeping fourteen to sixteen hours per day. Rosell’s counsel also informed the court that he had been unable to have meaningful conversations with Rosell concerning the case since the day on which Rosell collapsed and was carried away by ambulance. Rosell’s counsel also proffered Ro-sell for any questions that the judge might have concerning his condition, but the court indicated that it had no questions. Rosell confirmed under oath his counsel’s representations concerning his condition and his inability to have meaningful conversations with his attorney about the case. After this presentation, Rosell’s counsel informed the court that Rosell had another doctor’s appointment later that afternoon, and requested a continuance until the following morning. Alternatively, he moved for a mistrial. The district court denied both motions. On Thursday, November 17, Rosell’s attorney informed the court that Rosell had been admitted to the hospital the previous evening, and that it was his understanding Rosell would be hospitalized for two or three days. The court noted that the situation was problematic, but determined that the trial should go forward given that it was the last day of evidence in an eight-week trial. The court noted that this decision might ultimately require that a mistrial be declared. The court nonetheless denied Rosell’s motion for a continuance. Later in the day, Rosell’s counsel was forced to go forward with his defense case despite his client’s absence from the trial. As part of his case, Rosell’s attorney called and examined several witnesses, including the government agents who had monitored the wiretaps. Rosell remained hospitalized and absent from trial that day and on the following day when his counsel closed his defense case and when closing arguments began. Again, the district court denied his counsel’s motions for a continuance or a new trial. On the following Monday, two days after the conclusion of Rosell’s defense, and after closing arguments had begun, Rosell returned to court. Thereafter, the jury convicted him of all three counts with which he was charged. Rosell made a post-trial motion for a new trial based, in part, on the district court’s denial of his repeated motions for a continuance or mistrial as a result of his absence. The district court denied that motion. In doing so, the court stated that even assuming Rosell’s absence was involuntary, he was not entitled to a new trial because his counsel had been present at trial and there had been no showing of prejudice resulting from Rosell’s absence. 1. Standard of Review We review for clear error a district court’s determination of whether a defendant’s absence from trial was voluntary or involuntary. United States v. Bradford, 237 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir.2001). “If the court properly found the right [to be present] waived, we consider whether the court abused its discretion in concluding that there was on balance a controlling public interest to continue the trial in the defendant’s absence.” Id. “Finally, if the court erred in continuing trial in the defendant’s absence, we ask whether the error was harmless.” Id. “The determination of whether a constitutional error is harmless presents a mixed question of fact and law.... In reviewing mixed questions of fact and law the court is free to substitute its own judgment for that of the district court.” Hall v. Wainwright, 805 F.2d 945, 947 (11th Cir.1986). 2. Voluntariness of Rosell’s Absence The first question which we must address in order to decide whether Rosell is entitled to a new trial because of his absence on three full days (November 15, 17, and 18) and most of a fourth day (November 16), is whether his absence was voluntary or involuntary. Bradford, 237 F.3d at 1311. The parties have conflicting views on whether the district court ever answered this question. The government points out that the district court made a finding on November 16 that, based on the evidence that had been presented, it would treat Rosell’s absence as voluntary. Ro-sell points out that the district court assumed for purposes of his motion for new trial that the absence was involuntary. The district court never explicitly revisited its November 16 finding that Rosell was voluntarily absent, but the court made that finding before it was provided with much information about Rosell’s condition. It also made that finding before Rosell’s second hospitalization, which occurred during his absence from the two days of trial while his defense was presented. It is not clear from the record that the district court found Rosell’s entire absence voluntary. For example, in discussing whether to go forward without Rosell on November 17, the day that the presentation of Rosell’s defense began, the district court acknowledged that a showing that Rosell was “simply unable to attend” might be possible and could result in a mistrial. At that time, the court made no mention of Rosell’s absence being voluntary. Given that, we do not agree with the government that the district court found the entirety of Rosell’s absence to be voluntary. In light of the record, we are convinced that at least substantial portions of Ro-sell’s absence were involuntary, and that any contrary finding by the district court would have been clearly erroneous. Whether Rosell was voluntarily absent during the time when he was at home, but in pain and highly medicated, is a difficult issue, and if those were the circumstances surrounding the entirety of Rosell’s absence, then it might be difficult for us to conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding the absence voluntary — if that is what the court did or would do. However, at least during the periods of time when Rosell was hospitalized, which included both days on which his defense was presented, we find that Rosell was involuntarily absent from court, and that any contrary finding would be clearly erroneous. The record makes it abundantly clear, and the government does not dispute, that Rosell’s ailments during the last week of his trial were real. There is no contention that this is a case in which a defendant was faking an illness or otherwise attempting to scuttle a trial. Rosell attended seven weeks of this eight-week trial, and was absent only after collapsing in the