What is the test for severance of a defendant's defense in a severed trial?

Second, Langston argues that she and Meza intend to offer mutually exclusive defenses. "To be entitled to severance on the basis of mutually antagonistic defenses, a defendant must show that the core of the codefendant's defense is so irreconcilable with the core of his own defense that the acceptance of the codefendant's theory by the jury precludes acquittal of the defendant." United States v. Throckmorton, 87 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 1996). Langston cannot make this showing. If the jury accepts Meza's theory of defense, that would not "preclude[] acquittal of" Langston. Rather, it would likely make her acquittal much more probable.

Third, Langston argues that without severance she will have no right to call Meza to testify. That is true. The test, though, is whether (1) she would call Meza as a witness in a severed trial, (2) Meza would actually testify, and (3) Meza's testimony would be favorable. United States v. Seifert, 648 F.2d 557, 563 (9th Cir. 1980).