What is the test for severance of a defense of self-defence in a joint trial?

Accordingly, a trial court denying severance on the basis of conflicting defenses "abuses its discretion only when the conflict between the defendants alone will demonstrate to the jury that they are guilty. If, instead, 'there exists sufficient independent evidence against the moving defendant, it is not the conflict alone that demonstrates his or her guilt, and antagonistic defenses do not compel severance." (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 150 (Letner).) Here, it was not the conflict between appellants' stories alone that established their guilt. Rather, it was the independent evidence presented at trial, including the surveillance videos showing the sequence of the shootings.

Appellants argue a joint trial was unfairly prejudicial because the jury could not have logically accepted both their claims of self-defense. They rely largely upon federal authorities applying rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: United States v.

Page 16

Tootick (9th Cir.1991) 952 F.2d 1078, 1081-1082 [while defendants who raise inconsistent defenses may be jointly tried, severance was required when defenses raised were mutually exclusive in the sense that acquittal of one defendant would call for conviction of the other]; United States v. Rucker (11th Cir.1990) 915 F.2d 1511, 1513 [severance required when defenses are "so antagonistic as to be 'irreconcilable or mutually exclusive' " such that jury must disbelieve testimony on behalf of one defendant in order to believe testimony on behalf of the other]; and United States v. Romanello (5th Cir.1984) 726 F.2d 173, 177-180 [severance required when defenses offered by co-defendants were "irreconcilable and mutually exclusive"].