WPCsi 2 B5JCourierNew Century SchoolbookNew Century Schoolbook Italic#|yolbookAPLASIIN.PRSx  @hhhhPijX@#|y25< ZqZrXNew Century SchoolbookNew Century Schoolbook ItalicApple LaserWriter IINTAPLASIIN.PRS0y P['ChhhhPijXPčzCyCyd)ooYsdCkz?;w?zdsoY]Nzkkk`CyCyC8CC!CCCCCCCCCCs?oooooȟYddddQ?Q?Q?Q?zddddzzzzkosddkdsoooYYYYsddddkkkkkkzzQ?Q?Q?Q?ow?????zzzzddȧYYY~]~]~]~]NNNzzzzzzĜkz`z`z`s?zY~]NkksdzNy8yd;YUUoooC  Block QuoteSingle spaced indented quote XOutlineBOutline with Bullets* I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)-*+x-*+x-*+xҲPoolPool memo formatQ_,   =      ?0 Preliminary MemorandumăD(#OutlineNOutline with Numbersܸ-} I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1. 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1. 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1.Ҳ2hs;Xenvelope9 x 4 legal. `   3'3'Standard,,Envelope`   , LetterheadReporter's Office v |L #d*0 xM7[#Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions Office  |L EWashington, D. C. 20543#X~xP79XP#XmastreeFamily newsletteramily newsletter 7 N s  XX  XX y!>X XxddXMASTREE.WPGyyA>B" XxddXMASTREE.WPGy# #xCz  xCx#Merry Christmas#z  xC# (from #Toni and Aarony(#Xdddy *y 4dddy %X XX  _` #o P['C#{&P#FooterFirst to be turned on - goes with To/From Masthead )hl Xh  XX   y(#XXdddy    dd #u9 xICH0##Merry Christmas2$d 7Z#To/From3Second to be turned on - goes with Footer style 'v a  1  1 y!hhp(! ddADVENT.WPG<y#p4  p(AC!3#From`"(#ITo  n  y(dddy##9 xIC#Toni`(#(#Ky(dddy#t4  p(ACsX#у  W T$҇ 1 ! 1 Skierd3Christmas Newslettergoh Family Name +^0 U  X   X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:P# d  dd^_ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES #[ P['CdP# ^_  2  )Syllabus #GG P['CԦ^P#    #[ P['CdP#SYLCT-C 6Formats: Case No. and Datelines MacropcJR-#[ P['CdP# dd  21<2c4/80:"m^ #-AAa_'':G ' AAAAAAAAAA GGG4VTTT[TN[a/A[Nn_[N[TJN_TrRRG'G'G:AA4C:'?G%#E%hG:CA46-G?[??8'G'G' ''u''''''''''C%TATATATATAu]T4T:T:T:T:/%/%/%/%_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GR?TA[C[:[:R?[:NCTATATAT4T4T4T4[CT:T:T:T:[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/%/%/%/%A[EN%N%N%N%N%_G_G_G_G[:[:uaT4T4T4J6J6J6J6N-N-N-_G_G_G_G_G_Gr[R?G8G8G8[CN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u''GGGG/GG"m^8;Noo)CCdy8C88oooooooooo88yyyYQo~čzCyCyd)ooYsdCkz?;w?zdsoY]Nzkkk`CyCyC8CC!CCCCCCCCCCs?oooooȟYddddQ?Q?Q?Q?zddddzzzzkosddkdsoooYYYYsddddkkkkkkzzQ?Q?Q?Q?ow?????zzzzddȧYYY~]~]~]~]NNNzzzzzzĜkz`z`z`s?zY~]NkksdzNy8yd;YUUoooCgwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G='ooooIop"m^)+9RRzx11IY)1))RRRRRRRRRR))YYYAljjjrjbrz>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91'YYYY;YZ&-yC8 h0y P['CXP&u![2*d[ P['CP&[G' ԦGG P['C^P[G' GGe xzC^X&4NA> P['CPu![2*[e xzCX&)o=3no P['C&PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII2-QFclIcLC"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%jjjrjbrzgwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQX P['CPu![2*[e xzCX&)o=3no P['C&P &r!Y1)LY P['CP)o=3no P['C&P)o=3Roe xzC&X"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%jjjrjbrzP# ?d  dd^_ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES #[ P['CdP# ^_  2  &Syllabus  J #GG P['CԦ^P#    #[ P['CdP#q%"K uB  ddd ZAFIRO v. UNITED STATES &Syllabusq0SYLCT-A#o P['Cn&P#f  f ZAFIRO et al. v. UNITED STATES *i/SYLCT-B- #o P['Cn&P#   fdf < certiorari to the united states court of appeals for !Lthe seventh circuit  uB *cSYLCT-C #[ P['CdP# df  No. 91!6824. Argued November 2, 1992"Decided January 25, 1993 *bSYLCT-D#[ P['CdP#d  uB *,  d , , Petitioners were indicted on federal drug charges and brought to trial together pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), which provides that defendants may be charged together ``if they are alleged to have participated ... in the same series of acts or transactions constituting ... offenses.'' At various points during the proceeding, they each argued that their defenses were mutually antagonistic and moved for severance under Rule 14, which specifies that, ``[i]f it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of ... defendants ... for trial ..., the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever relief justice requires.'' The District Court denied the motions, and each petitioner was convicted of various offenses. Although acknowledging other lower court cases saying that a severance is required when defendants present ``mutually antagonistic defenses,'' the Court of Appeals found that petitioners had not suffered prejudice and affirmed the denial of severance.Ƭ  uB \SYLCT-E , , ( (  *  ( ( Held:ĠRule 14 does not require severance as a matter of law when codefendants present ``mutually exclusive defenses.'' While the Rule recognizes that joinder, even when proper under Rule 8(b), may prejudice either a defendant or the Government, it does not make  uB mutually exclusive defenses prejudicial per se or require severance whenever prejudice is shown. Rather, severance should be granted only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of a properly joined defendant or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence. The risk of prejudice will vary with the facts in each case, and the Rule leaves determination of the risk, and the tailoring of any necessary remedy, to the sound discretion of the district courts. Although separate trials "1!"(( will more likely be necessary when the risk is high, less drastic measures, such as limiting instructions, often will suffice. Because petitioners, who rely on an insupportable brightline rule, have not shown that their joint trial subjected them to any legally cognizable prejudice, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions to sever. Moreover, even if there were some risk of prejudice, here it is of the type that can be cured with proper instructions, which the District Court gave. Pp.3!7.ư m*SYLCT-G ( ( , ,  *  , , 945 F.2d 881, affirmed.Ƭ  uB cSYLCT-H , , ( (    O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which  uB Rehnquist, C.J., and White, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter,  uB and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.