Posts by bodazafa
1 - 3 of 62 Posts
Joined
·
5,111 Posts
1) antagonistic defenses conflicting to the point of being irreconcilable and mutually exclusive; 2) a massive and complex quantity of evidence making it almost impossible for the jury to separate evidence as it related to each defendant when determining each co-defendant’s innocence or guilt; 3) a co-defendant statement inculpating the moving defendant; or 4) gross disparity in the weight of the evidence against the defendants.
Oglesby v. United States, 764 F.2d 1273, 1276 (1985); United States v. Garner, 837 F.2d 1404, 1413 (7th Cir 1987); See also, State v. Jennaro 76 Wis.2d 499, 251 N.W.2d 800 (1977); State v. DiMaggio, 49 Wis.2d 565, 182 N.W.2d 466 (1971); State v. Patricia A.M., 168 Wis.2d 724, 484 N.W.2d 380 (Ct. App. 1992), rev’d on other grounds, 176 Wis.2d 542, 500 N.W.2d 289 (1993); State v. Nutley, 24 Wis.2d 527, 129 N.W.2d 155 (1964); State v. Denny, 120 Wis.2d 614, 357 N.W.2d 12 (Ct. App. 1983); State v. Brown, 114 Wis.2d 554, 338 N.W.2d 857 (Ct. App. 1983).
The United States Supreme Court when discussing discretionary severance under Rule 14 F.R.Cr.P. stated that severance should be granted where “there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or would prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.” Zafro, Martinez, Garcia, and Soto v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539, 113 S.Ct. 933, 938 (1993).
Super exciting legal mumbo jumbo!
Oglesby v. United States, 764 F.2d 1273, 1276 (1985); United States v. Garner, 837 F.2d 1404, 1413 (7th Cir 1987); See also, State v. Jennaro 76 Wis.2d 499, 251 N.W.2d 800 (1977); State v. DiMaggio, 49 Wis.2d 565, 182 N.W.2d 466 (1971); State v. Patricia A.M., 168 Wis.2d 724, 484 N.W.2d 380 (Ct. App. 1992), rev’d on other grounds, 176 Wis.2d 542, 500 N.W.2d 289 (1993); State v. Nutley, 24 Wis.2d 527, 129 N.W.2d 155 (1964); State v. Denny, 120 Wis.2d 614, 357 N.W.2d 12 (Ct. App. 1983); State v. Brown, 114 Wis.2d 554, 338 N.W.2d 857 (Ct. App. 1983).
The United States Supreme Court when discussing discretionary severance under Rule 14 F.R.Cr.P. stated that severance should be granted where “there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or would prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.” Zafro, Martinez, Garcia, and Soto v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539, 113 S.Ct. 933, 938 (1993).
Super exciting legal mumbo jumbo!
1 - 3 of 62 Posts
