Opinion ID: 779816
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Severance of Kehoe and Lee's Trials

Text: 33 Kehoe appeals the district court's denial of his motion to sever his trial from that of co-defendant Lee, arguing that he was prejudiced by the admission of Lee's out-of-court statements. A district court may sever a trial at its discretion under Rule 14, if either party would be prejudiced by the joinder. Fed.R.Civ.P. 14; Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 535, 538-39, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). We will reverse a district court's denial of a motion to sever only upon a showing of real prejudice, which is more than a showing [that] a separate trial would have improved the likelihood of acquittal. United States v. Gravatt, 280 F.3d 1189, 1191 (8th Cir.2002). [I]t will be the rare case, if ever, where a district court should sever the trial of alleged coconspirators. United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835, 844 (8th Cir.2002) (citing United States v. Patterson, 140 F.3d 767, 774 (8th Cir.1998)). 34 We conclude that Kehoe has not shown clear prejudice. Any possibility that testimony regarding Lee would taint Kehoe's trial was minimized by the court's instructions to the jury that each defendant's case be decided based solely on the evidence applied to him. Frazier, 280 F.3d at 844. 35