SPIVEY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (29 total)

• United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1977)
  …ly or qualitatively equivalent. A defendant is not entitled to severance merely because the evidence against a co-defendant is more damaging than the evidence against him. United States v. De Larosa, 450 F. 2d 1057,1065 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 927, 92 S.Ct. 978, 30 L.Ed.2d 800 (1972). Severance becomes necessary where the proof is such that a jury could not be expected to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to separate defendants. United States v. De Larosa, supra at 1065. A review…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Somers, 496 F.2d 723 (3d Cir. 1974)
  …nt is not entitled to a severance merely because evidence against a co-defendant is more damaging then the evidence against the moving party. See United States v. De Larosa, 450 F. 2d 1057, 1065 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, Bashen v. United States, 405 U.S. 927, 92 S.Ct. 978, 30 L.Ed.2d 800 (1972). In the contest of a Rule 14 application, we have declared that a “ . . . [p] rimary consideration is whether the jury can reasonably be expected to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to separate defenda…
• United States v. Knife, 592 F.2d 472 (8th Cir. 1979)
  …endant entitled to severance simply because the evidence against a codefendant may be more damaging than the evidence against him. United States v. Jackson, supra at 525; United States v. De Larosa, 450 F. 2d 1057, 1065 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 927, 92 S.Ct. 978, 30 L.Ed.2d 800 (1972). Severance is required only where the proof is such that a jury could not reasonably be expected to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to separate defendants. United States v. De Larosa, supra at 1065.…