Court Opinion

ID: 9465022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:33:34.523026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:56.077015
License: Public Domain

CHARLES CLARK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
With deference to the majority, I am left with neither a definite nor a firm conviction that the defendants were legally prejudiced by their joint trial. The government contended that both defendants possessed the sawed-off shotgun which was lawfully discovered under the dashboard of the car they had jointly occupied. The common defensive tactic used by both Crawford and Blanks was to claim that the other was the sole possessor of the contraband weapon. While the I-didn’t-he-did defense of each defendant was antagonistic to the use of the same tactic by the other defendant, the common assertion of these cross-accusations could be reconciled under the third possibility: joint possession. No case relied on by the majority finds abuse of discretion in denying severance in this same fact matrix.
Our appellate task is to review the exercise of discretion by the trial judge who rules on a motion for severance, not to reexercise that discretion here. Discretion in ruling on a request for severance rests upon a balancing of the interests of defense and prosecution. Even aside from the fact that a sawed-off shotgun in an automobile is about as apparent as an elephant in a bathtub, the government’s contention of joint possession should not be ignored in the balancing process. The prejudice to prosecution resulting from separate trials in which each defendant could lay off on the other (who could make himself unavailable by invoking the fifth amendment) was a proper weight to place in the scales. The interest of the people in justice, which would be served by allowing a single jury to decide between the three possible versions *493of possession, outweighs the privilege of the defendants to enjoy an advantage in the presentation of their respective disclaimers. I do not discern any abuse of discretion here.
Because I find no merit in issues raised as to proof of prior acts of possession or as to the trial judge’s findings on the Youth Corrections Act, matters which the majority did not have to reach, I would affirm.