## Facts

- Gloria Zafiro, Jose Martinez, Salvador Garcia, and Alfonso Soto were charged with federal drug offenses arising from an alleged narcotics distribution conspiracy in the Chicago area.
- Agents observed Garcia and Soto transport a large box from Soto’s residence to Zafiro’s apartment; when confronted, they fled into the apartment and dropped the box, which contained 55 pounds of cocaine.
- After obtaining a warrant, agents searched Zafiro’s apartment and found substantial quantities of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana in a suitcase in a closet, and approximately $22,960 in cash nearby.
- Agents also found 7 pounds of cocaine in a car parked in Soto’s garage.
- The defendants were indicted and tried together; each sought severance, asserting that their defenses were mutually antagonistic because each defendant blamed another and denied knowledge or involvement.
- The district court denied severance; a jury convicted all four of conspiracy to possess controlled substances with intent to distribute, and convicted certain defendants of substantive possession-with-intent-to-distribute counts.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court reviewed whether severance was required based on antagonistic defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 requires severance as a matter of law whenever properly joined codefendants present mutually antagonistic or mutually exclusive defenses.
2. What showing of prejudice is necessary to require severance in a joint federal criminal trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the convictions.
- Rule 14 does not require severance per se when codefendants present mutually antagonistic or mutually exclusive defenses.
- Severance is warranted only when a joint trial poses a serious risk of compromising a specific trial right or preventing a reliable verdict.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance because the defendants failed to show legally cognizable prejudice, and limiting instructions were sufficient on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Joint trials of defendants indicted together are generally favored for efficiency and to reduce inconsistent verdicts.
- Rule 14 provides discretionary, case-specific relief; even when some prejudice is shown, the court is not required to order severance and may use tailored remedies.
- Mutually antagonistic defenses are not prejudicial per se; the relevant question is whether there is a serious risk that joint trial will:
  - compromise a specific trial right (e.g., confrontation, admissibility protections), or
  - prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.
- Limiting instructions and other measures short of severance often suffice to address potential prejudice, including instructions to consider each defendant and each charge separately.

## Conclusion

The Court held that antagonistic defenses alone do not mandate separate trials under Rule 14; severance is required only upon a concrete showing that a joint trial creates a serious risk to a specific trial right or to the reliability of the jury’s verdict, and trial courts retain broad discretion to select appropriate remedies.


Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993)