New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I have known Ms. Orr for over a decade and she is an excellent criminal defense attorney with high ethical standards." by Peer Attorney Read More
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "They are next level on intelligence and understanding. My full respect to these attorneys." by Amber R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More


When defendants have been properly joined under Rule 8(b), a district court should grant severance only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt. See Zafiro

  1. U.S., 113 S. Ct. 933, 939 (1993).

The general rule is that “persons indicted together are tried together, especially in conspiracy cases.” See U.S. v. Pofahl. 990 F.2d 1456, 1483 (5th Cir. 1993).

But see            In U.S. v. Neal, the defendants alleged that they were entitled to severance because their involvement was extremely limited and, therefore, a spillover effect would occur. U.S. v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1045 (5th Cir. 1994).

In Neal, the Court held that the defendant’s convictions vacated and remanded for a new trial given that the undisputed leader of the conspiracy would have testified on their behalf had severance been granted. U.S. v. Neal, 27 F.2d at 1047.

The defendants established a bona fide need for the leader’s testimony as the substance of that testimony was exculpatory in nature. U.S. v. Neal, 27 F.3d at 1047.

(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact