Justice Robert Kohm
Joseph was charged with robbery, and gang assault, among other things, with two codefendants, his brother, Kerryl, and Diallo. Both codefendants allegedly made oral and written statements to police implicating Joseph in the subject attack, but also alleged their actions were legally justified. Joseph moved for a separate trial arguing a joint trial would unduly prejudice his right to a fair trial as both codefendants made statements directly implicating him in the incident, and they all had mutually antagonistic defenses. The court did not find the defense of Joseph to be in irreconcilable conflict with the defenses of his codefendants, nor did it find there was a significant danger a so-called conflict alone would cause the jury to infer Joseph’s guilt. Prosecutors contested the notion of antagonistic defenses—but conceded that admission of codefendants’ statements at a joint trial would constitute a Bruton v. United States conflict—but argued severance was unnecessary, suggesting using dual juries instead. The court agreed. It noted, to accomplish holding one trial involving all three defendants require the court and the parties to select dual juries so as to negate the Bruton issue.
