Opinion ID: 582485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Denial of Benary's Severance Motion

Text: 42 Benary contends that the district court denied him a fair trial when it refused to grant his request for severance. 43 When the reason for severance is the need for a codefendant's testimony, defendant must show that he would call the codefendant at a severed trial, that the codefendant would in fact testify, and that the testimony would be favorable to the moving party. Jenkins, 785 F.2d at 1393. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Merit, who had vacillated several times and expressed great concern that his testimony could ultimately be used against him, was making a conditional offer to testify. See United States v. Mariscal, 939 F.2d 884, 886 (9th Cir.1991). In addition, there was other inculpatory evidence that in and of itself would be sufficient to support a conviction, id., which would have been heard by both juries. Benary therefore cannot show  'clear,' 'manifest,' or 'undue' prejudice from a joint trial that violates a substantive right. United States v. Candoli, 870 F.2d 496, 510 (9th Cir.1989). 44