Document: 506 U.S. 534 113 S.Ct. 933 122 L.Ed.2d 317 Gloria ZAFIRO, Jose Martinez, Salvador Garcia and Alfonso Soto, Petitionersv.UNITED STATES. No. 91-6824. Argued Nov. 2, 1992. Decided Jan. 25, 1993. Syllabus * Petitioners were indicted on federal drug charges brought to trial together pursuant Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), which provides that defendants may be charged "if they are alleged have participated . in the same series acts or transactions constituting offenses." At various points during proceeding, each argued their defenses mutually antagonistic moved for severance under 14, specifies that, "[i]f it appears a defendant government is prejudiced by joinder ., court order an election separate trials counts, grant provide whatever relief justice requires." The District Court denied motions, petitioner was convicted offenses. Although acknowledging other lower cases saying required when present "mutually defenses," Appeals found petitioners had not suffered prejudice affirmed denial severance. Held: 14 does require as matter law codefendants exclusive defenses." While recognizes joinder, even proper either Government, make prejudicial per se whenever shown. Rather, should granted only if there serious risk joint would compromise specific right properly joined prevent jury from making reliable judgment about guilt innocence. will vary with facts case, leaves determination risk, tailoring any necessary remedy, sound discretion district courts. more likely high, less drastic measures, such limiting instructions, often suffice. Because petitioners, who rely insupportable bright-line rule, shown subjected them legally cognizable prejudice, did abuse its denying motions sever. Moreover, some here type can cured gave. Pp. ____. 945 F.2d 881 (CA 7 1991), affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed concurring judgment. Kenneth L. Cunniff, Chicago, IL (appointed this Court), petitioners. John F. Manning, DC, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 8(b) Rules act transaction offense Rules, turn, permits "it joinder." In we consider whether requires 2 Zafiro, Garcia, Soto accused distributing illegal drugs Chicago area, operating primarily out Soto's bungalow Zafiro's apartment Cicero, nearby suburb. One day, agents observed place large box car drive apartment. followed two carried up stairs. When identified themselves, dropped ran into entered pursuit four living room. contained 55 pounds cocaine. After obtaining search warrant apartment, approximately 16 cocaine, 25 grams heroin, 4 marijuana inside suitcase closet. Next sack containing $22,960 cash. Police officers also discovered cocaine parked garage. 3 together. severance, arguing antagonistic. testified he knew nothing conspiracy. He claimed asked him box, gave (Soto) know contents until arrested. testify, but his lawyer innocent: belonged ignorant contents. Zafiro Martinez repeatedly ground she merely Martinez's girlfriend She stayed her occasionally, kept clothes there, small amounts money. allowed store closet, testified, no idea drugs. Like testify. But visiting involved 5 all conspiring possess intent distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 846. addition, possessing distribute, 841(a)(1), ibid. 6 appealed convictions. abused (Zafiro appeal motion, thus, claim before Court.) Seventh Circuit acknowledged "a vast number say entitled 'defendants defenses' sense 'the acceptance one party's defense precludes acquittal defendant.' " 881, 885 (1991) (quoting United States v. Keck, 773 759, 765 (CA7 1985)). Noting "mutual antagonism characterizations effort shift blame himself codefendant neither control nor illuminate question severance," F.2d, at 886, Court's We petition certiorari, 503 ----, 112 1472, 117 617 (1992), now affirm Appeals. II states "[t]wo indictment information There preference system Joint "play vital role criminal system." Richardson Marsh, 481 200, 209, 107 1702, 1708, 95 176 (1987). They promote efficiency "serve interests avoiding scandal inequity inconsistent verdicts." Id., 210, S.Ct., 1708. For these reasons, approved trials. See ibid.; Opper States, 348 84, 95, 75 158, 165, 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954); Marchant, 12 Wheat. 480, 700 (1827); cf. C. Wright, Practice 223 (2d ed. 1982) (citing opinions effect). Government. Thus, provides, 8 together, 9 interpreting Courts frequently expressed view antagonistic" "irreconcilable" so circumstances mandate See, e.g., Benton, 852 1456, 1469 (CA6), cert. denied, 488 993, 109 555, 102 582 (1988); Smith, 788 663, 668 (CA10 1986); supra, 765; Magdaniel-Mora, 746 715, 718 (CA11 1984); Berkowitz, 662 1127, 1133-1134 (CA5 1981); Haldeman, 181 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 294-295, 559 31, 71-72 (1976), 431 933, 97 2641, 53 250 (1977). Notwithstanding assertions, courts reversed relatively few convictions failure grounds irreconcilable defenses. Tootick, 952 1078 (CA9 1991); Rucker, 915 1511, 1512-1513 1990); Romanello, 726 173 1984). low rate reversal reflect inability prove most involving conflicting 10 Nevertheless, urge us adopt mandating Brief i. decline do so. Mutually se. shown; rather, granted, any, court's discretion. Lane, 474 438, 449, n. 12, 106 725, 732, 88 814 (1986); Opper, U.S., 165. 11 believe been defendants, Such might occur evidence against admissible tried alone admitted codefendant. example, codefendant's wrongdoing erroneously could lead conclude guilty. many complex case markedly different degrees culpability, heightened. Kotteakos 328 750, 774-775, 66 1239, 1252-1253, 90 1557 (1946). Evidence probative defendant's technically prejudice. Bruton 391 123, 1620, 20 476 (1968). Conversely, suffer essential exculpatory available unavailable trial. Tifford Wainwright, 588 954 1979) (per curiam ). find situations discussed here. determine necessary, but, indicated suffice cure 211, 1709. Turning note articulate instances Instead contend very nature defenses, without more, them. Their theory both innocent accuses crime, (1) lying convict basis, (2) least must guilty regard Government has proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13 As first contention, well settled because better chance 922 914, (CA1 Manner, 281 89, 98, 887 317, 324 (1989), 493 1062, 110 879, 962 (1990). designed "to economy avoid multiplicity trials, [so long as] objectives achieved substantial fair trial." Bruton, 131, 6, 1625, (internal quotation omitted). "[a]n important element relevant competent bearing issue innocence," (emphasis added), include exclude evidence. A normally testimony former sever see reason why witness second short answer petitioners' scenario simply offered sufficient petitioners; turn "juries presumed follow instructions." Richardson, instructed "the burden proving doubt" committed crimes charged. Tr. 864. then "give consideration individual charge him. Each determined own conduct [that] applicable her." 865. admonished opening closing arguments draw inferences exercise silence. 862-864. These instructions sufficed possibility Schaffer 362 511, 516, 80 945, 948, 921 (1960). 15 remedy Affirmed. 17 18 people apprehended possession container filled narcotics, probable what inside. inference knowledge heightened when, flee confronted police officers, occupy premises found. ante, time, however, remains entirely possible person knowledge. That, course, argument made case: crucial suitcase. 19 Most here, persons lacked container. hypothesis compatible lack logical inconsistency between version events ignorant, ignorant; unlikely seem, theoretically versions true, ignorant. words, dual ignorance necessarily translate term used reviewing preclude codefendant.1 my view, presented rise level mutual antagonism. First, whom failed carry Nothing codefendants, supplemented Government's proof way. above, accepted toto precluding Similarly, acquitted Martinez. It none Accordingly, believed not. standard defenses.2 And event, obviously fact, concluding codefendants. 22 merit suggestion motions. Neither all, explicitly cautioned attorneys considered Ante, assertion counsel innocence; similar opinion, correctly antagonistic." App. 88-89. 23 I save another day evaluation arise truly innocence squarely, hesitate develop rule govern situation faced like People Braune, 363 Ill. 551, 557, N.E.2d 839, 842 (1936), transform "more contest than defendants." Under circumstances, highly prejudicial, particularly prosecutor's case-in-chief marginal decisive left provided 24 overcoming presumption innocence, doubt, rests solely shoulders prosecutor. Joinder problematic operate reduce prosecutor, general ways. introduce effect prosecutor turning other's forceful adversary.3 Second, invite almost certainly guilty, regardless proven doubt particular defendant.4 Though surely correct minimized careful insisting codefendant, ____, danger remain inquiry cases.5 Given concerns, cannot share enthusiastic unqualified "preference" notes announced years ago (1987), sustained permissibility prior occasions.6 will, multidefendant reliable, efficient manageable mammoth conspiracy elects prosecute. cases, mindful risks overreaching characteristic count included indictment. Jackson's eloquent description concerns Krulewitch 336 440, 454, 69 716, 723, 93 790 (1949), explains much stake administrative convenience. 26 agree "bright-line defenses" unwarranted. reasons think retain traditional presented. refrain announcing construed limit 27 decided concur affirmance. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. citing cases. State Kinkade, 140 Ariz. 91, 93, 680 P.2d 801, 803 (1984) (defining exclusive" defenses). Cf. Ariz., (distinguishing "competing" "Defendants accuse bring respect zealously represent client, everything defendant. existence extra troublesome always held limitations standards imposed prosecutor." 1078, 1082 1991). 173, 179 Vinal, 198 Conn. 644, 652, 504 A.2d 1364, 1368 (1986) (in "where becomes conviction losing result success defending product state's satisfaction constitutional duty doubt"). 1082. 556, (1936) ("[N]o judge, however learned skillful," prevented aggravated case). (1954), (1827), express

Category: 0