Opinion ID: 677062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testa and Paz

Text: 20 Testa and Paz contend that the admission of Martinez's statement about Gomez was prejudicial to them because, by exculpating Gomez, it implicitly inculpated them. This argument is unpersuasive because it relies on the unsupported premise that, in a joint trial, evidence exculpating one codefendant inculpates the others by its failure to exculpate them. Indeed, as the government argues on appeal, trying coconspirators jointly would be nearly impossible if we were to adopt the implicit inculpation theory advanced by Testa and Paz, because all evidence that tended to exculpate fewer than all codefendants would be inadmissible. In any case, the court instructed the jury to consider Martinez's statement only as to Gomez, and Testa and Paz have given us no reason to believe that the jury could not follow this instruction. 1 See Soria, 965 F.2d at 441; L'Allier, 838 F.2d at 242. Testa's and Paz's contention therefore fails. 21 Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of Martinez's statement about Gomez.