Reference no: EM133284047

Consider these facts from an actual case:

Defendant Damien Warren and three codefendants, Eric Young, Marvin Howard and Nathaniel Williams, were jointly indicted on a theory of accomplice liability for second-degree murder . . . and second-degree weapon possession . . . in connection with a drug-related shooting death in the City of Buffalo. . . . The week before jury selection, Young, who had just waived his right to a jury trial, was offered a plea to a class A misdemeanor in exchange for his testimony. Howard also waived his right to a jury, which prompted Warren's attorney to ask County Court to try Warren and Howard separately, or, alternatively, direct that Howard testify outside the jury's presence if he took the stand. The judge denied these requests, and a joint bench and jury trial ensued.

The jury convicted Warren and acquitted Williams of both crimes charged, while the judge acquitted Howard. County Court sentenced Warren to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life for murder, and 15 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision on the weapon possession conviction. Warren appealed on the ground that the judge's refusal to direct Howard to testify outside the jury's presence deprived him of his right to a fair trial. The Appellate Division unanimously agreed and reversed the judgment of conviction and sentence . . . and we now affirm.

This case highlights the complicated nature of accomplice liability, which occurs when several people work together in the commission of a criminal act. Here, four individuals were charged with crimes, three of them as accomplices. One (Young) pled guilty, so three went to trial. Of the three who went to trial, two (Warren and Williams) received jury trials and one (Howard) received a bench trial. Warren was convicted, while Williams was acquitted. Howard was also acquitted. Warren, the presumed trigger man, received the harshest sentence and appealed, claiming that Howard's testimony at Warren's trial was prejudicial because if separate trials were granted for both men, Warren's jury would not have heard Howard's testimony, which Warren argued led the jury to conclude that he was the trigger man. Had the men received separate trials (known as severance), the jury would not have heard Howard's testimony and thus may have been inclined to acquit Warren.

Question:

Should Howard, Warren and Williams have received separate trials? Why or why not?