78 N.Y.2d 996 (1991)
Severance of trials is required when the core defenses of codefendants are irreconcilably conflicting, and there’s a significant danger that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer a defendant’s guilt.
Summary
George Cardwell, Herman Goss, and Johnnie McCoy were jointly tried for murder and robbery. Cardwell and Goss sought severance, arguing their defenses were irreconcilable with McCoy’s. McCoy was acquitted, while Cardwell and Goss were convicted. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the severance motion. The Court found that McCoy’s defense was in irreconcilable conflict with those of Cardwell and Goss, and the conduct of the trial created a significant danger that the conflict alone led the jury to infer Cardwell’s and Goss’s guilt.
Facts
George Cardwell, Herman Goss, and Johnnie McCoy were charged with murder, robbery, and weapons possession stemming from a fatal shooting during a robbery at a candy store.
Prior to trial, Cardwell and Goss moved for severance, arguing that their defenses were antagonistic to McCoy’s.
The trial court denied the motion, and the three defendants were tried jointly.
During the joint trial, McCoy’s attorney took an aggressive, adversarial stance against Cardwell and Goss.
Goss’ attorney attempted to impeach McCoy’s testimony with evidence of a recantation, which elicited an assertion from McCoy that Cardwell induced the recantation by threats.
Procedural History
Cardwell, Goss, and McCoy were tried jointly in Queens County.
McCoy was acquitted, while Cardwell and Goss were convicted on several charges.
Cardwell and Goss appealed, arguing the denial of their severance motion was reversible error.
The Appellate Division affirmed their convictions.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial for Cardwell and Goss.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendants’ motion to sever their trials, given that their defenses were allegedly irreconcilable, and whether this prejudiced the defendants.
Holding
Yes, because the core defenses of Cardwell and Goss were in irreconcilable conflict with McCoy’s defense, and the circumstances of the joint trial created a significant danger that the conflict itself led the jury to infer Cardwell’s and Goss’s guilt.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied the two-part test from People v. Mahboubian, which requires severance when: (1) the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other; and (2) there is a significant danger that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer the defendant’s guilt. The District Attorney conceded the first prong was met.
Regarding the second prong, the Court emphasized the fact-specific nature of the inquiry. While trial courts decide severance motions prospectively, appellate courts review the issue with the benefit of a full trial record.
The Court noted several special factors that demonstrated prejudice. McCoy’s attorney essentially acted as a second prosecutor against Cardwell and Goss. When Goss’s attorney tried to impeach McCoy’s testimony, McCoy claimed Cardwell threatened him, introducing damaging evidence not presented by the prosecution.
The Court quoted Mahboubian, stating that the situation “created the sort of compelling prejudice that could have been avoided by the grant of the requested severance.” The court found the trial court abused its discretion by denying the severance motion and reversed the convictions of Cardwell and Goss.
The Court emphasized that the strong public policy favoring joint trials is overcome when the prejudice to the defendants is too great. This case serves as a reminder that joint trials must be carefully scrutinized to ensure a fair trial for each defendant, particularly when their defenses are antagonistic.