When two or more people are charged with participating in the same criminal act, it is possible to try the defendants together in a single trial. This is often done for the sake of “judicial economy,” i.e., to conserve the resources of the court and the prosecutor’s office. But the trial judge needs to weigh such efficiency concerns with the potential prejudice to any of the individual defendants.

For example, it is possible that the prosecution will seek to introduce evidence that would not be admissible under a defendant who is tried separately but might be admissible against a co-defendant in a joint trial. At the same time, the mere fact that some otherwise-inadmissible evidence might come up at trial does necessarily invalidate a judge’s decision to try multiple defendants together.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Upholds Murder Conviction in Prison Gang Case

A recent unpublished decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Bunner v. State, provides a practical illustration of what we are talking about. This case involved two defendants named Bunner and Lockner who were charged and tried together for murder. The two co-defendants were already in prison when the alleged crimes occurred. Specifically, they were two of three prisoners charged with killing a fellow inmate. The third man pleaded guilty while Bunner and Lockner decided to go to trial.

The prosecution moved to try both men together, because it was the state’s theory that they were part of a prison “gang” that conspired to kill the victim. Bunner objected to the joint trial, arguing that evidence that was admissible against Lockner would not otherwise be admissible against him. Specifically, Bunner pointed to a note that Lockner had sent him that suggested a possible motive for killing the victim. Bunner argued that the note would unfairly prejudice the jury against him, even though he was not the author.

Despite Bunner’s objections, the judge granted the state’s motion for a joint trial. A jury proceeded to convict both defendants of second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced each defendant to 30 years in prison.

On appeal, Bunner renewed his objection to the joint trial. But the Court of Special Appeals held the trial court acted within its discretion in permitting joinder of these cases. Even assuming that Lockner’s note (and another piece of evidence cited by Bunner) would have been inadmissible against Bunner had he been tried separately, this “limited degree of non-mutually inadmissible evidence didn’t prejudice Mr. Bunner unfairly.” Indeed, the appellate court noted that the challenged evidence did not actually undermine Bunner’s defense at trial–that he had been forced into participating in the murder due to his prison gang affiliation. To the contrary, all the challenged evidence established was the existence of the defendants’ mutual gang affiliation, which Bunner conceded.

When Joint Trials Create Legal Risk for Defendants

Joint trials are commonly used when multiple individuals are charged in the same incident. While they promote efficiency for prosecutors and courts, they also introduce unique risks for the defendants involved. A joint trial may not always result in a fair outcome for each individual, especially when evidence admissible against one co-defendant would be inadmissible in a separate trial for another.

The Challenge of Non-Mutual Evidence

In Maryland, courts can grant or deny a prosecutor’s motion to join co-defendants for trial. However, this discretion must be exercised carefully, particularly when non-mutual evidence is present. This refers to evidence admissible against one defendant but not the other. If such evidence dominates the case or significantly undermines a co-defendant’s defense, the risk of unfair prejudice increases.

For example, jurors may struggle to compartmentalize that information if a recorded statement, document, or witness testimony strongly implicates one defendant and has little to no relevance to the other. Even with limiting instructions from the judge, the potential for spillover prejudice remains high.

Motion to Sever and Judicial Discretion

Defense attorneys can file a motion to sever, requesting that their client be tried separately. These motions are typically supported by an argument that joinder would compromise the defendant’s right to a fair trial. In Maryland, a trial court will only grant severance if the moving party demonstrates that the joint trial would result in substantial prejudice that outweighs the benefits of joinder.

Judges evaluate factors such as:

• Whether the defenses are antagonistic
  
• The extent to which inadmissible evidence affects only one defendant
  
• The complexity of the case and the likelihood of jury confusion
  
• The impact on judicial efficiency and resources
  

Significantly, Maryland appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s judgment on severance motions unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.

Different Defenses in a Joint Trial

When co-defendants present conflicting defenses, a joint trial becomes increasingly complex. One defendant may claim complete innocence while the other admits involvement but argues duress or diminished responsibility. These divergent narratives can place jurors in the difficult position of choosing which defendant is more believable, even when the evidence against them is not equally strong. The jury may unconsciously associate the weaknesses of one defense with the other, especially when both defendants are seated together throughout the trial.

This scenario can lead to what courts refer to as “mutually antagonistic defenses.” In Maryland, judges must consider whether presenting such opposing theories in one trial would compromise fairness. If the jury believes one defendant’s version of events only by rejecting the other’s, severance may be necessary to protect each person’s right to an impartial trial. The risk of prejudice grows without a clear separation of facts and arguments. The prosecution can shift away from determining each individual’s guilt and instead become a matter of comparing the credibility of co-defendants.

Constitutional Concerns and Sixth Amendment Protections

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to confront witnesses and present a defense. This right can be compromised in joint trials if one co-defendant’s confession or out-of-court statements implicate the other. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in such cases that unless the confessing defendant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, the statement cannot be used in a way that violates the rights of the co-defendant.

Maryland courts follow these principles closely. When a joint trial raises constitutional concerns, such as Bruton violations (named after the Supreme Court case Bruton v. United States), severance may be required.

Contact Waldorf Criminal Defense Lawyer Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.

Source:

https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/0906s20.pdf