People of the VI v. Jahmar D. Lewis

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: July 25, 2024
• Docket: ST-2022-CR-69
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) Plaintiff, ) v ) CASE NO ST 2] CR 0380 ) CASE NO ST 22 CR 0068 MlCAlAH COZIBR ) CASE NO ST 22 CR 0069 AKENDA WEEKS ) CASE NO ST 22 CR 009] JAHMAR LEWIS ) JUNIOR GARCIA ) ) Cite as 2024 Sager 27 Defendants ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Jahmar Lewis’s ("Lewis ') Motion to Sever ‘ The

People filed an opposition to Lewis’s motion and requested permission to transcribe Junion“ Garcia 3

(“Garcia") videotaped statements and to redaet the statements to address the issues raised by Lewis ’

The Court deferred its decision on the motion to sever and granted the People’s request to transcribe

and redact Garcia’s confessions The Court also ordered the People to provide copies of the transcripts

of Garcia’s unredacted statements and statements with the proposed redactions to the Court and

Defendants 3 On May 31, 2024, the People filed with the Court a redacted transcribed version of

Garcia’s September 28, 2022, statement that they intend to use as evidence at the joint trial, along

with the unredacted version for comparison Lewis filed his objections to the redactions on J une IO,

' Akenda Weeks("Wteks )and Micaiah( Cozter )joined in Limit; 5 motion to sever However on July 3 2024 Cozier filed a motion for change of plea and a change ofplea hearing “as held on July 16 2024 ’ The Button issues raised by Lewis will only arise during the trial if the People seek to introduce Garcia 5 statement and Garcia does not testify If Defendant Garcia testifies at the trial he would be subject to cross examination avoiding any Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause issue And, if the People decide not to use Garcia a confession at the jomt trial, no Button conccme will arise 3Rule t4(b) of the Virgin Islands Criminal Rules of Civil Procedute perrntts the court to order an attomey for the gm emment to deliver to the court for in camera inspection any defendant 3 «statement that the govemment intends to use as evidence People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 2 of 15

2024 On June 21, 2024, the People filed a Notice of Filing Proposed Jury Instruction to be used in

conjunction with the redacted statement 4 The Court held a hearing on the People 5 proposed

redactions and Lewis’ objections to the redactions on June 25 2024 After the hearing the People

in response to some of the concerns raised by Lewis, filed an amended redacted transcript of Garcia s

statement In an Order issued on July I 2024 the Court denied Lewis s motion to sever This

memorandum opinion explains the Court’s reasons for denying the motion to sever

I FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Based on the allegations in the Probable Cause Fact Sheet and Information Defendants

Cozier, Weekes, Lewis, and Garcia participated in a daring armed robbery of Glitters Jewelry Store

in the area of the Havensight Shopping Mall and cruise ship dock in St Thomas The robbery occurred

on December 4 2021 at approximately ll 00 a m at the height of the holiday season while residents

and tourists were shopping or conducting business in the area Multiple witnesses informed officers

that the robbers were four black males, all dressed in black and carrying automatic rifles During the

robbery, two people were shot One victim died from her injuries, and the other Victim suffered critical

injuries but survived Law enforcement obtained and reviewed surveillance footage of the robbery

and subsequently identified Defendants Detectives interviewed Garcia 8 mother and Garcia, who

was a minor at the time Defendant Garcia, after being advised of his constitutional rights and with

his attorney present, agreed to speak to law enforcement regarding the events leading up to the robbery

and what transpired at the robbery Garcia 3 confession identified and implicated Cozier, Weeks, and

" The proposed jury instruction minors the jury instruction fi'0m the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit See Model ( riminal Jury Instructions Chapter 4 Final Instructions Consideration Of Particular Kinds of Evidence, 4 33 Prior Statement of Non testifying Defendant in Multi Defendant Trial Imps www ca3 uscourtsgov’model criminal jury table cgntggtg awstmctions People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 3 of 15

Lewis in the robbery and murder The People have charged Defendants with multiple serious crimes,

including murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, assault in the first degree,

kidnapping, robbery, grand larceny, reckless endangerment use of a firearm during the commission

of various crimes, unauthorized possession of ammunition, unlawful entry, aiding and abetting 0f the

crimes and conspiracy

II STANDARD FOR GRANTING MOTION TO SEVER

The Virgin Islands Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) provides for the joinder of multiple

defendants in a single trial

The information may charge two or more defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transactions or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses The defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately All defendants need not be charged in each count

V l R CRlM P 8(b) The practice of conducting joint trials is motivated by the public interest as it

helps in avoiding lengthy and costly legal proceedings By conducting joint trials, the need to recall

witnesses for multiple separate trials is eliminated This not only saves the court time and resources

but also reduces the burden on jurors who would otherwise have to make a myriad of sacrifices if

recalled to serve on multiple juries It is important to note that joint trial is the standard rule while

severance of cases into individual trials is considered an exception to this norm Gov’t of the V1 v

Petersen Nos 156 1985 157/1985 158/1985 1985 V I LEXIS 47 at *3 (V 1 Super Ct July 16

1985) ( Joint trial is the rule; severance is the exception which applies where joinder of defendants

yields such prejudice to a defendant as to deny him his fundamental right to a fair trial ”) Joint trials

are particularly preferred when the codefendants are jointly charged, the same evidence can prove the People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 4 of 15

charges against each defendant, and the charges arise from the same occurrence, transaction, or series

of events Id

If the Joinder of offenses or defendants in an information or a consolidation for trial appears

to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the

defendants trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires V l R CRlM P 14(a) For a

defendant to prevail on a motion to sever pursuant to Rule 14, s/he has a heavy burden and must

pinpoint clear and substantial prejudice resulting in an unfair trial People v Roberts, SX 14 CR

136 SK [4 CR 137 SX 14 CR 144 2016 VI LEXIS 232 *2 (VI Super Ct Oct 25 2016)

(quoting United States v Qumtero 38 F 3d 1317 1343 (3d Cir 1994)) [T]the prejudice allege must

outweigh the underlying purposes ofjoinder ” Gov tofthe V] v Petersen, 1985 V I LEXIS at *4

[11 DISCUSSION

“The Confrontation Clauses prohibits the admission of an individual's testimonial statement

against the accused when that individual does not appear at trial, unless he is unavailable to testify,

and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross examination ” Browne v People ofthe Vzrgm

Islands 56 V I 207 222 (V I 2012) citing Crawford v Washington 541 U S 36 124 S Ct I354

158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004) Thus where two or more defendants are tried jointly the pretrial

confession of one cannot be admitted against the other unless the confessing defendant takes the

stand chhardson v Marsh 481 U S 200 206 109 S Ct 1702 95 L Ed 2d 176(1987) Acustodial

examination and formal statement to law enforcement constitute a testimonial statement Browne v

People 56 V I 207 at 222 Garcia 3 mirandarized confession to the VIPD, in the presence of his

5 The Confrontati-on Clause of the Sixth Amendment states ' [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him " U S Const amend V1 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 5 0f 15

attorney, is unquestionably testimonial and is protected by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth

Amendment, which explicitly prohibits the introduction of out of court testimonial statements as

evidence unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had the opportunity to cross examine

them

Lewis argues that Garcia 5 confession implicating him and other co defendants would be

prejudicial if Garcia the confessor—did not take the stand, depriving them of the opportunity to

cross examine and confront Garcia Lewis further argues that the admission of Garcia 5 confession

to law enforcement will present strong evidence against the co codefendants and potentially assist the

government in leveraging a conviction against them at trial He cites Bruton v United States, 391

U S 123 88 S Ct 1620 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968) to support his argument that if a joinder of

defendants appears to prejudice a defendant, the court may sever the defendant's trial Lewis also

contends that the People cannot use evidence admissible only against a co defendant to convict Lewis

Lewis surmises that in light of the Bruton concerns, the best corrective measure is severance

This case, however, is notably different from Bruton In Bruton, defendant Bruton and his co

defendant were convicted in a joint trial At the trial, the government introduced the codefendant s

oral confession through a postal inspector who testified that Bruton s codefendant orally confessed

to him that he and Bruton committed the armed postal robbery Neither Bruton nor his codefendant

testified The trial court issued a limiting jury instruction and instructed the jury that although the

codefendant s confession was competent evidence against the codefendant, it was inadmissible

hearsay against Bruton and had to be disregarded in determining Bruton’s guilt or innocence Bruton

v U S , 391 U S at 124 125 The United States Supreme Court reversed Bruton s conviction, holding

that despite the limiting instruction, the introduction of the codefendant 5 out of court confession at Pe0ple ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 6 of 15

the trial violated Bruton’s Sixth Amendment right to cross examine witnesses against him It held

that the codefendant's confession implicating Bruton was substantially prejudicial enough to warrant

severed trials because the confessing codefendant exercised his Fifth Amendment protection against

self incrimination and did not take the stand or otherwise submit to cross examination, depriving

Bruton of his right to confrontation Bruton v U S 396 U S at [35 137 The Court fithher held that

the judge s jury instruction to disregard the confession as to Bruton did not cure Bruton 5 right of

cross examination secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment Id

As to Lewis’s argument that Garcia’s modified statement directly implicates him and his co

defendants, the Court is not so persuaded Unlike Bruton, the People have submitted a redacted

statement of codefendant Garcia, which supports their representation that they do not intend to admit

a facially incriminating statement of a non testifying codefendant into evidence against Lewis The

redacted statement removes all co defendant 8 names and substitutes their name for neutral nouns or

pronouns such as other person, other people, he, him, them, and they Additionally, Lewis and the

People have provided the court with the proposed Jury instruction, which is often used in the Third

Circuit when a prior statement of a non testifying codefendant is introduced in a multi defendant trial

Considering the proposed limiting jury instruction and the redactions, which do not directly identify

co defendants, Lewis’s reliance on Bruton is misplaced

In three separate instances, the United States Supreme Court carefully scrutinized the redacted

statement of a codefendant who did not testify which was presented as evidence during a joint trial

In Richardson v Marsh, supra the Supreme Court had to consider whether Bruton requires the same

result when the co defendant’s confession is redacted to omit any reference to the Defendant, but the

defendant is nonetheless linked to the confession by evidence properly admitted against him at trial People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lem: Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 7 of 15

Richardson V Marsh, 48] U S at 202 In Richardson, defendant Marsh and a co defendant were

tried together The codefendant’s confession was redacted to omit any reference to Marsh, and any

evidence of his existence was omitted The co defendant did not testify and the jury was given a

limiting instruction directing them not to use the codefendant s confession in any way against Marsh

After Marsh was convicted of two counts of felony murder and one count of assault with intent to

commit murder and his direct state appeals were unsuccessful, he filed a habeas corpus petition

alleging that the introduction of the codefendant s confession violated his Sixth Amendment rights to

confrontation Richardson v Marsh 481 U S at 202 206 The Supreme Court of the United States

ruled that the Sixth Amendment s Confrontation Clause is not violated when a non testifying

codefendant's confession is admitted during a joint criminal trial, as long as the confession is redacted

to remove any reference to the defendant and the jury is given a proper instruction not to use the

confession against the defendant It explained that it was proper to presume that the jury would obey

the limiting instruction, and the improbability that a jury would be able to disregard a codefendant s

expressly incriminating confession did not apply to a confession from which every reference to the

defendant had been redacted Id The Richardson Court specifically distinguished Richardson from

Bruton

There is an important distinction between this case and Bruton, which causes this case to fall outside of the narrow exception we have created In Button, the eodefendant’s confession expressly implicated’ the defendant as his accomplice Thus, at the time that confession was introduced there was not the slightest doubt that it would prove ‘powerfully incriminating ’ By contrast, in this case the confession was not incriminating on its face, and became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial (the defendant 3 own testimony)

Richardson v Marsh, 481 U S at 208 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lem: Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 8 of 15

In Richardson, the court pointed out that the “calculus changes when confessions that do not

name the defendants are at issue ” Id at 21 1 In other words, with appropriate redactions, a

nontestifying codefendant's confession can be admitted at trial without violating the Bruton rule In

Richardson, the Supreme Court categorically characterized Bruton as a narrow exception ’ to the

‘invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions 1d at 206 207 This case does

not fall within Brutal: 3 narrow exception The People have provided the Court and the parties with

Garcia’s redacted statement The proposed redacted statement does not name or explicitly incriminate

any of the Defendants With the redactions and appropriate limiting instruction the pitfalls identified

in Bruton are obviated

After chhardson, the Supreme Court considered the redactions in Gray v Maryland, 523

U S l85 I 18 S Ct ] 15] 140 L Ed 2d 294 (I998) In Gray the Supreme Court ofthe United States

again had to consider whether a nontestifying codefendant’s redacted confession at a joint trial, with

the defendant’s name replaced with obvious indications of alteration, violated the Sixth Amendment's

confrontation clause In Gray, the trial court permitted the state to introduce a redacted version of the

nontestifying codefendant’s confession with codefendant Gray’s name substituted with a blank space

or the word deleted The Court gave a limiting instruction that the confession be used only against

the codefendant The jury convicted both defendants Gray v Mai) [and 23 U S at 188 189 The

Supreme Court held that the non testifying codefendant’s confession fell within the Bruton rule as

the nonconfessing defendant 3 name was replaced with an obvious blank space, a word such as

“deleted, a symbol, or other similarly obvious symbols of alteration Id at 192 The Supreme Court

found that the Gray redactions were similar enough to Bruton s unredacted confessions to warrant

the same legal result 1d The People’s redactions, unlike the redactions in Gray, do not replace a Pe0ple ofthe Vtrgm Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 9 of 15

proper name with an obvious blank, the word ‘ delete,” or a symbol In Gray, the Court noted that

rather than the answer ‘Me, deleted, deleted and a few other guys the witness could have instead

said “Me and a few other guys ” Id at I96 The People’s redactions are not like those in Gray and

more like the example suggested by the court in Gray

More recently in Samia v United States 599 U S 635 I43 S Ct 2004 216 L Ed 2d 597

(2023), the Supreme Court of the United States had to address the issue of whether the Sixth

Amendment Confrontation Clause bars the admission of a non testifying codefendant s confession

where the confession had been modified to avoid directly identifying the non confessing codefendants

and the trial court offered limiting instructions that jurors could consider the confession only with

respect to the confessing codefendant In Samza, Samia and his codefendants Hunter and Stillwell

were charged in a multicount indictment with, among other offenses, conspiracy to commit murder

for hire, murder for hire, and causing death with a firearm during and in relation to a crime of

violence They were tried jointly for the murder for hire of real estate broker Lee The Court

permitted the Government to introduce Stillwell’s post arrest confession in which he admitted that he

was in the van when Samia shot and killed Lee Stillwell confessed that he was only the driver and

that it was Samia who killed Lee Samza v U S , 599 U S at 640 Before the trial the government

moved m ltmme to admit Stillwell’s redacted confession, which removed Samia’s name while

avoiding obvious indications of redaction Rather than identifying Samia by name, the agent

recounting the confession used the descriptor the “other person Id at 641 During the agent 5

testimony, the District Court instructed the jury that the agent’s testimony was admissible only against

Stillwell and should not be considered as to Samia and Hunter The District Court again provided a People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lew13 Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 10 of 15

similar limiting instruction before the Jury deliberated Samia and his co defendants were convicted

on all counts 1d at 642

On the appeal, Samai argued that the admission of Stillwell s redacted confession, even with

a limiting instruction, was unconstitutional because other evidence and statements at trial led the jury

to conclude that the other person” mentioned in the confession was Samai himself The Supreme

Court rejected Samia's arguments The court held that omitting the defendant 5 name and substituting

it with another person,” along with a limiting instruction, is usually sufficient to allow the

introduction of a codefendant's confession Id at 646 It pointed out that “jurors can be relied upon

to follow the trial judge s instructions ” Id The Supreme Court went on to distinguish Brutal: from

Samza It explained

In BrutOll v United States, this Court recognized a narrow exception to the presumption that juries follow their instructions holding that a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial even with a proper instruction In Richardson v Maish, the Court declined to extend Bruton further to confessions that do not name the defendant

[(1 at 647 The Court noted that there are different implications for “confessions that directly

implicate a defendant and those that do not do so directly Id at 612 It pointed out that the

confession in Bruton directly or expressly “implicated Bruton by name,’ while the redacted

confession in Richardson “inculpated the defendant only when viewed in conjunction with other

evidence ’ Id at 650 The Court concluded that StilIwell s confession was redacted to avoid naming

Samia, satisfying Bruton’s rule And, it was not obviously redacted in a manner resembling the

confession in Gray, the neutral references to some ‘other person’ were not akin to the obvious blank

or word ‘deleted ’” 1d at 153 In this case, the redactions are akin to the redactions in Samza In People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Leww Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 11 of 15

addition, the proposed limiting jury instruction instructing Jurors to consider the confession as

evidence only against the confessor codefendant will provide Lewis with further protection, for it is

assumed that jurors follow their instructions Id

Significantly the Supreme Court in Samza expounded that it “would not have been feasible

to further modify Stillwell’s confession to make it appear, as in chhardson that he had acted alone,

Stillwell was charged with conspiracy and did not confess to shooting the real estate broker

Consequently, the evidence Ofcoordination between Stillwell and Lee s killer (whether Samia or not)

was necessary to prove an essential element of the Govemment’s case In addition editing the

statement to exclude mention of the ‘other person’ may have made it seem as though Stillwell and

Lee were alone in the van at the time Lee was shot Such a scenario may have led the jurors who

sat in judgment of both Samia and Stillwell to conclude that Stillwell was the shooter an obviously

prejudicial result ” Similarly, in this case, the Defendants have been charged with conspiracy, aiding

and abetting Thus, modifying Garcia's statement to appear as if he acted alone would contradict the

evidence Doing so could present an inaccurate and possibly prejudicial representation of the facts

Based on Samza, redactions to avoid any semblance of a conspiracy are unnecessary, particularly in

a conspiracy case, further limiting the Bruton rule and reinforcing that Bruton is a “narrow exception ”

The modifications proposed by the People are more similar to those in Sarma, Richardson,

and the hypothetical example in Gray Lewis’s contention that the redacted confession will implicate

Lewis in the criminal events of December 4, 202l, is not sufficient to justify severance The Coun

in Samaz cautioned that ‘neither Bruton, Richardson nor Gray provides license to flyspeck trial

transcripts in search of evidence that could give rise to a collateral inference that the defendant had

been named in an altered confession ” Id at 637 Moreover, an evidentiary linkage or contextual People ofthe Vlrgm Islands v Jahmar D Lew13 Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 12 of 15

implication may not be utilized to convert a non Brutal: admissible statement into

a Bruton inadmissible statement ” Browne v People of the Virgin Islands, 56 V] at 222, citing

Umted Statesv Belle 593 F 2d 487 493 (3d Cir I979) Thus the admission of codefendant Garcia 8

statement is not precluded merely because the Government may present evidence that links the

statement to other evidence 1d

Lewis s argument that a joint trial will permit the People to leverage a potential conviction

against Lewis ignores United States Supreme Court precedent Lewis takes the broad view that once

a codefendant has made a confession, the cases should be severed Not only is that not the rule but

joint trials are favored for pragmatic reasons In Richardson the Supreme Court rejected the view

that courts must always sever multi defendant trials when there is an incriminating confession of a

codefendant, or the prosecution must forego the use of a codefendant confessions in joint trials It

reaffirmed its stance that joint trials play a vital role in the criminal justice system by promoting an

efficient or just outcome and stated that

It would impair both the efficiency and the fairness of the criminal justice system to require, in all cases of joint crimes where incriminating statements exist, that prosecutors bring separate proceedings, presenting the same evidence again and again, requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience (and sometimes trauma) of testifying and randomly favoring the last tried defendants who have the advantage of knowing the prosecution 3 case beforehand Joint trials generally serve the interests of Justice by avoiding inconsistent verdicts and enabling more accurate assessment of relative culpability advantages which sometimes operate to the defendant’s benefit Even apart from the tactical considerations, joint trials generally serve the interest ofjustice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts The other way of assuring compliance with an expansive Bruton rule would be to forego use of codefendant confessions That price is also too high, since confessions are more than merely desirable, they are essential to society 5 compelling interest in finding, convicting and punishing those who violate the law People 0fthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 13 of 15

Richarson, at 209 210 (internal citations omitted) In Samca, the Supreme Court again rejected the

position advocated by Lewis It reiterated that severance is not mandated whenever the prosecution

wishes to introduce the confession of a nontestifying codefendant in a joint trial as it is “too high a

price to pay Id at 654 The Samza Court went on to further state that “[i]oint trials have long

played a vital role in the criminal justice system preserving government resources and allowing

victims to avoid repeatedly reliving trauma Joint trials also “encourage consistent verdicts and

enable more accurate assessments of relative culpability ’ Id In conspiracy cases, joint trials allow

the jury to fully assess the extent of the conspiracy and prevent the government from being put at a

tactical disadvantage due to the disclosure of its case United States v Jaghama, 2023 U S Dist

LEXIS 2l0849 *2 (ED Pa 2023)

Next, Defendant argues that severance is warranted because even though the evidence on the

record supports the finding that the robbery and shooting occurred, there is “virtually no evidence

linking him to the crimes asserted ” Lewis asserts that a laboratory report provided by the government

doesn’t support a finding that Lewis contributed to the DNA sample or in the alternative, gives him

a low percentage of a possibility that he contributed to other DNA results Namely he avers that most

items in the report indicate that there is limited support for exclusion, and only one item indicates

moderate support for inclusion of Lewis 5 contribution to the DNA sample In sum, Lewis argues that

because the People are likely to introduce the Garcia’s confession and introduce DNA evidence

linking at least some co defendants to the crimes, the prejudicial spillover risk would become so

great that denying severance would be equal to denying Lewis a fair trial and facilitating “a

miscarriage of justice According to Lewis, “the jury will not be able to compartmentalize the

evidence against only the defendant against whom it is presented,” therefore, severance is appropriate People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 14 of 15

in the case at hand In opposing Lewis’s motion, the People argue that there is sufficient DNA

evidence implicating Lewis With regards to the DNA report the People contend that ‘ there is at

very least some evidence that Defendant Lewis 5 DNA is on both the weapon left behind at the scene

of the robbery and inside and outside the stolen minivan used to commit the robbery ”

As the trier of fact, it is for the jury to consider the relevant and competent evidence presented

by the parties to support the guilt or innocence of a defendant It is also for the jury to decide what

weight to give the evidence presented Moreover “it is well settled that defendants are not entitled

to severance merely because they may have a better chance of acquittal in separate trials Zafiro v

United States 506 U S 534 540 113 S ) Ct 933 938 122 L Ed 2d 317 326 (1993) In United

States v Somers 496 F 2d 723 (3d Cir 1974) the defendants argued on appeal that they were

prejudiced by the fact that the Government's evidence against other defendants was much more

substantial than the evidence introduced against them Finding the argument to be without legal

significance, the Third Circuit held that ‘a defendant is not entitled to a severance merely because the

evidence against a co defendant is more damaging than the evidence against the moving party ”

[d at 730 Besides, any potential prejudice to Lewis can be mitigated with proper jury instructions

People v Virgin Islands v Stephens No ST 16 CR 377 2018 VI LEXIS 94 *3 5(VI Super Ct

Sept 12 2018)

IV CONCLUSION

Although a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, he is not entitled to a perfect one Samia v U S,

599 U S at 648 Moreover, the “Confrontation Clause ensures that defendants have the opportunity

to confront witnesses against them, but it does not provide a freestanding guarantee against the risk

of potential prejudice that may arise inferentially in a joint trial ’ Id at 655 Here, Lewis has not People ofthe V1rgm Islands v Jahmar D Lewzs Case No ST 22 CR 00069 Memorandum Opinion Page 15 of 15

shown he will suffer undue prejudice absent severance Essentially, his position is that the cases

should be severed because severance will reduce his chance of being convicted This is not a

justifiable basis to sever the trials Moreover, as discussed above, there is a strong public interest in

a joint trial in the instant case There are two overarching criminal activities here—the murder

committed in the course of robbery and the common criminal conspiracy The codefendants face

similar charges As it relates to each codefendant the evidence to be introduced, witnesses to be

subpoenaed, and arguments to be made to the jury are likely to be the same or to have substantial

overlap Lewis has not provided any compelling reason for the court not to try the alleged co

conspirators together He has not shown that a joint trial will prevent the jury from making a reliable

judgment The Brawn concerns raised by Lewis can be addressed through redactions and by giving

an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury if the People seek to introduce Garcia 3 statement at

trial and Garcia does not testify See also Romero v Beard 2024 U S Dist LEXIS 80921 (E D Pa

May 2, 2024) (rejecting Confrontation Clause violation argument where the defendant 8 name was

replaced with the neutral phrase the other guy and the trial court gave a limiting instruction to the

jury) Trying all the defendants together in a joint trial will be more efficient and serve the interests

ofjustice Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, Lewis s motion to sever is denied

Dated July 25, 2024 f t a : 612:" c a Carol Thomas Jae s Judge of the Superior Court ATTEST of the Virgin Islands Tamara Charles Clerk of t e urt

By Latoya amacho W Court lerk Supe isor Z / 25/ Zflg/