Opinion
BIRD, C. J.
Appellant, Ronald Jerome Smallwood, was convicted of one count of first degree murder with the use of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022.5)1 and one count of robbery (§ 211) with firearm use and great bodily injury findings (§§ 12022.5, 12022.7). Special circumstance allegations that the murder (1) was intentional and carried out for financial gain (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1)) and (2) was committed while appellant was engaged in or was an accomplice in the commission of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)) were found true. Appellant waived his right to a jury at the [418]*418penalty phase and the court fixed the punishment at death. This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).)
Appellant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was consolidated with this appeal.
I.
A. Prosecution Case
Appellant was initially charged with two murders, each with special circumstances, arising out of the killings of George House and John Dunbar.2 The jury failed to reach a verdict on charges relating to Dunbar, and as to those charges a mistrial was declared. The facts relating to the Dunbar homicide must nevertheless be set forth in detail because of their relevance to appellant’s claim of error in the denial of his motion to sever the two murder counts.
1. House Homicide
On March 17, 1979, George House, a 52-year-old pensioner, spent the afternoon and evening drinking beer and playing shuffleboard at Patti’s Bar in Pasadena. By 8 p.m. he had spent all his money and become inebriated. [419]*419Mildred Rhodes, who lived with House and had been at the bar with him, gave him $3 to take a cab home and helped him into the cab.
Ron Chan, a cab driver, said he picked up a man resembling House about 8:30 p.m. on March 17, 1979, in front of Patti’s Bar in Pasadena. The man gave him $3 when he dropped him off in front of Boy’s Market on Fair Oaks Avenue in Pasadena. He appeared very drunk and staggered as he walked up the street.
House was shot and killed as he was walking up Claremont Street near its intersection with Progress Lane. His body was found lying in a driveway a few doors from his house on Claremont. He had been shot three times, once in the eye and twice in the back. His keys and cigarettes were near the body; his wallet was found about 200 yards away on the grounds of Kings’ Manor Housing Project. Some of his identification cards were scattered on the other side of the street diagonally across from where he fell. No usable fingerprints were found on the cards or the wallet.
Two percipient witnesses linked appellant to the homicide: Arthur Spencer and Kathy Hall, residents of Kings’ Manor Housing Project, who knew appellant.
Spencer had been visiting his sister that evening. While walking home from her apartment, he saw appellant talking to House on the other side of the street. He recognized House as a person who lived in the neighborhood. As appellant and House were talking, Spencer saw House make a motion toward his pants pocket and pull his pocket out.3 Appellant held a gun, which was pointed at the ground. He raised the gun, pointed it at House’s head and fired once. Spencer saw House fall to the ground. At that point Spencer turned and started running back to his sister’s apartment. As he started running, he heard but did not see, two more shots being fired. Spencer slowed down, looked back, and saw appellant running away.
At the time of the shooting Spencer could see appellant’s face clearly. He was about 35 to 40 feet away. Spencer did not recall seeing anyone else nearby. Spencer had been selling Valium regularly to appellant and had last seen him two nights before when he had sold him some.
Spencer admitted he was a regular user of drugs and alcohol. On the day of the House murder he thought he had taken one or two Valiums. He had drunk beer earlier in the day and had possibly smoked marijuana.
[420]*420On the evening House was killed, Kathy Hall was in the circle where Claremont deadends at Kings’ Manor Project. About 10 to 20 other people were there, sitting and talking. Among them were Donnie Gray, Rickie Rivers and appellant. Appellant told Donnie Gray and Rickie Rivers that he had a gun and was going to “make some money.” He patted his waist when he referred to his “piece.” Hall saw House walk by on Claremont while she was sitting on a wall on the other side of Claremont about halfway between the deadend and the intersection with Progress Lane. About 45 minutes later, while she was still sitting on the wall, she heard two or three shots. She looked down the street and saw appellant standing over a body and Rickie Rivers and Donnie Gray standing across the street on Progress Lane. She and several other people started running toward appellant. Donnie and Rickie ran south, but Hall did not see where appellant went.
Later that evening Hall ran into appellant, Donnie and Rickie at the jungle gym and began talking with them. Appellant was holding a gun. He asked her to go back to the scene of the shooting and find out what the police were saying. She refused, but later agreed when she was asked to do so by her cousin, Donnie. She went back to Claremont, watched the police for about 30 minutes and then reported to appellant, Donnie and Rickie that the police did not know anything.
Hall admitted that she delayed telling the police what she knew. When first questioned, she denied any knowledge because she did not want to get involved. She changed her mind, however, after—at appellant’s instigation—she was shot four or five months later by Sherry Ann Sanford. Hall and appellant had fought before. On this occasion appellant, who was standing right next to Sherry Ann, said: “Shoot the bitch. Shoot her now.” Sherry Ann obeyed and shot Hall in the chest and arm.
Hall admitted that many of the things she had first told the police—such as that she had actually seen appellant shoot House—were untrue. She had said these things because she was mad at appellant.
Sometime before trial, while appellant and Hall were on a bus together coming from the county jail, he asked her why she was going to testify against him. Hall replied that she thought he knew why. Appellant said she “knew that he wasn’t killing nothing but white people so why would . . . [she] snitch on him.”
2. Dunbar Homicide
About 1 p.m. on October 16, 1979, John Dunbar, a lawyer employed by Texaco, entered Boy’s Market across the street from Kings’ Manor Housing [421]*421Project. He may have attempted to cash a check, since a cashier there remembered having seen Dunbar’s driver’s license. Dunbar left the store, got in his car and began to drive slowly down La Pintoresca Street.
Arlene Gagatch, who was sitting in her car on La Pintoresca, saw Dunbar drive by. She noticed him because he looked out of place in this neighborhood where almost everyone was Black or Mexican. Gagatch saw two young Black men, aged 16 to 18, approach Dunbar’s car as it drove slowly along the street. One of them pulled out a gun and fired at Dunbar from about three feet away. She heard two shots and saw the car hit a tree and bounce back. The two young men then ran off toward Kings’ Manor.
Gagatch identified appellant from photographs and a lineup as the one who fired the shot. She described the jacket appellant was wearing, but apparently identified a jacket that had been taken from another suspect.
Gagatch had been waiting for her friend Jerome Bobo who lived on La Pintoresca. Bobo testified that he heard a shot, ran out of his house and saw Dunbar’s car hit the tree. When he approached the car, he saw Dunbar slumped over with a hole in his head.
Arthur Spencer also saw the killing of Dunbar. He had been in Boy’s Market when Dunbar came in. He saw him get in a car and drive off slowly. Spencer left the market and watched from the sidewalk as appellant and a couple of his friends walked along near Dunbar’s car. He saw appellant raise a gun and shoot the driver in the head through the window. The car hit a tree and everyone ran. Spencer remembered seeing a woman sitting in a car on La Pintoresca.
Dunbar was found dead in his car from a gtinshot wound in his head. The assailants had not touched him or entered his car. Dunbar’s wallet was found on the floor of the car. More than $100 was in his shirt pocket.
Valerie Thompson testified that she saw appellant and Donnie Gray on the evening of October 16, 1979. Although she would not confirm the truth of a statement she had made to a police officer when she was in jail, she did admit that she had told the police that appellant told her that he and Donnie had seen a White man who “looked rich” at Boy’s Market. Appellant said he shot the man and took some money but left other money and jewelry behind.
B. Defense Case
Appellant presented no evidence relating to the House homicide. As to Dunbar, appellant’s mother testified that he was at home with her at the [422]*422time of the shooting. She said he was asleep in his room from 6 a.m., when she got the younger children off to school, until the early afternoon, when the police came. She knew he was in his room because she could hear him snoring.
Evidence was also presented regarding the investigation of William Kenneth Rice and his brother Charles Rice for the Dunbar homicide. William was arrested because the jacket he was wearing fit the description of the one worn by the killer. Although the testimony on this point was confusing, it appears that Gagatch may have identified a jacket worn by one of the Rice brothers.
II.
The sole guilt phase contention that must be addressed is appellant’s claim that the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his pretrial motion to sever the House counts from the Dunbar counts.
The determination of this claim must, of course, be made on the basis of the showing presented at the time of the motion.4 (People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 312 [208 Cal.Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669]; People v. Santo (1954) 43 Cal.2d 319, 332 [273 P.2d 249]; People v. Brawley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 277, 292 [82 Cal.Rptr. 161, 461 P.2d 361]; cf. Note, Joint and Single Trials under Rules 8 and 14 of The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1965) 74 Yale L.J. 553, 556, hereafter cited as Joint and Single Trials.) The following record was before the court when it ruled on the motion.
The House charges were based on the preliminary hearing testimony of Kathy Hall. Hall testified that on the evening of March 17, 1979, she was sitting on a low wall in the cul-de-sac at the end of Claremont Street, talking with several friends. She saw Smallwood in the area, along with “a lot of guys” who were gambling. During the evening, Hall heard Smallwood tell one of the guys that he had a “piece” and was “going to make some money.” Hall understood a “piece” to mean a gun, but she didn’t see one in Smallwood’s possession. She wasn’t really paying much attention to him.
Hall heard the shots which killed House. She followed the crowd in the direction from which those shots came, apparently a block or two from where she was sitting. She saw Smallwood standing over the body, along [423]*423with several other people. Smallwood was bending over the body, but his hands were empty. He ran away before Hall reached him. Some other people left with him, and Hall lost sight of them.
Hall stayed with the crowd which had gathered near the body for about 45 minutes. When the police arrived, she left with her cousin Delton Burns and headed for the Jackie Robinson Center. On the way, Hall and Burns saw Smallwood and two of his friends. Smallwood was holding a gun.
Smallwood asked Hall to go see what the police were saying. Hall and Burns returned to the scene of the shooting and stayed until they thought the police were ready to leave. Then they walked back to Smallwood and his friends and told them the police didn’t know anything. Hall and Burns had not talked to any officers at the scene.
Identification in the victim’s name was found about 100 feet from his body. His empty wallet was found approximately 300 feet from his body.
In November of 1979, Hall was hospitalized for a gunshot wound. She had been shot by Smallwood’s girlfriend in an argument which arose when Smallwood took some money from Hall. At the preliminary hearing, Hall testified that Smallwood had urged the girlfriend to shoot her. While Hall was in the hospital she decided to tell the police what she knew about Smallwood’s conduct on the night of the House homicide. Her failure to talk to the police sooner had nothing to do with any fear of Smallwood. She just did not want to get involved.
It was not established whether Hall gave her information to the police before or after Smallwood’s arrest in the Dunbar case.
No other evidence was offered to connect Smallwood with the House homicide. Arthur Spencer, who gave an eyewitness account of both homicides at trial, did not testify at the preliminary hearing nor was his existence mentioned by any other witness.
Smallwood was tied to the Dunbar homicide by the testimony of Arlene Gagatch. Gagatch had been sitting in her parked car when Dunbar was shot as he drove down the street. Gagatch identified Smallwood as one of the two young men she had seen walking down the street just before the shooting. She testified that she had seen him hold a shiny object in his extended hands moments before the shots were fired.
Gagatch called the police at once. They arrived quickly, but the two young men had disappeared into the housing projects. Gagatch testified that the [424]*424young men had run off one or two seconds after the shooting. Dunbar’s car was still in motion when they started to run.
A police officer testified that when he arrived at the scene, he discovered the driver’s window of Dunbar’s car smashed. Dunbar’s wallet lay on the floorboard. It contained identification but no cash.
In arguing the severance motion, defense counsel did not dispute the propriety of joinder of the charges.5 He conceded that joinder was proper since the charged offenses were of the same class, but he urged the court to exercise its discretion in favor of severance for the following reasons: (1) The House murder and robbery occurred seven months before the Dunbar murder and attempted robbery; (2) the two murders were not so similar that evidence relating to one would be admissible in a trial of the other if they were tried separately; (3) the evidence on the Dunbar counts was substantially stronger than that which connected appellant to the House counts and might “spill over,” causing the jury to convict on the House counts, even though appellant would stand a good chance of acquittal if the House murder were tried separately; and (4) given the possibility that a spillover of the Dunbar evidence might lead to a conviction of the House murder, severance was necessary to prevent a resultant unfair application of the charged multiple murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)).
The prosecutor opposed the motion, arguing that defense counsel’s assessment of the relative strength of evidence on the House and Dunbar charges was entirely subjective and that even if the assessment were correct, a finding of weaker evidence on one count did not mandate severance. (See People v. Brock (1967) 66 Cal.2d 645, 656 [58 Cal.Rptr. 321, 426 P.2d 889], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Cook (1983) 33 Cal.3d 400, 413, fn. 13 [189 Cal.Rptr. 159, 658 P.2d 86].)
III.
Section 954 outlines the discretion which the trial court has in ruling on a severance motion. That statute provides in relevant part: “An accusatory [425]*425pleading may charge two or more different offenses connected together in their commission, or different statements of the same offense or two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts .... [T]he court in which a case is triable, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, may in its discretion order that the different offenses or counts set forth in the accusatory pleading be tried separately or divided into two or more groups and each of said groups tried separately . . . .” (Italics added.)
This court recently set forth the standards for meaningful appellate review of severance motions. Before the decision in Williams v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 441 [204 Cal.Rptr. 700, 683 P.2d 699], such rulings were typically accorded great deference. In fact, this court had previously admitted that “‘[w]here consolidation meets the test of joinder,’ . . . ‘the difficulty of showing prejudice from denial of severance is so great that the courts almost invariably reject the claim of abuse of discretion. ’ ” (People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 39 [117 Cal.Rptr. 664, 528 P.2d 752], quoting with approval Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure, p. 288.)
Williams represented a major advance by announcing for the first time that reviewing courts must analyze realistically the prejudice which flows from joinder in light of all the circumstances of the individual case.6 Williams also directed reviewing courts to weigh any claimed benefits to the prosecution from joinder in order to determine whether such benefits are real or theoretical. No longer may a reviewing court merely recite a public policy favoring joinder or presume judicial economy to justify denial of severance. “Put simply, the joinder laws must never be used to deny a criminal defendant’s fundamental right to due process and a fair trial.” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 448.)
In Williams, this court held that “a demonstration of substantial prejudice by a defendant may be sufficient to warrant severance of charges which could otherwise properly be joined. When substantial prejudice is clearly shown, a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for severance constitutes an abuse of discretion under Penal Code section 954.” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 452.)
The first inquiry to be made in deciding whether joinder will entail substantial prejudice is “to examine the issue of cross-admissibility of evidence.” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 448.) If the two offenses are [426]*426cross-admissible, there will probably be little or no prejudice from joinder. Conversely, if the offenses are not cross-admissible, the accused in most cases will be able to demonstrate at least some measure of prejudice from joinder.
Williams went on to hold that a lack of cross-admissibility does not necessarily establish such “substantial” prejudice that severance would be required. Against the conceded prejudice to the accused must be weighed the benefits of joinder. “““Joinder of unrelated charges . . . ordinarily avoids needless harassment of the defendant and the waste of public funds which may result if the same general facts were to be tried in two or more separate trials.”” . . . .” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 451, quoting People v. Matson, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 41 and Coleman v. Superior Court, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d at pp. 138-139.)
Determination of whether the prejudice from joinder is sufficiently “substantial” to outweigh these benefits, Williams held, “is a highly individualized exercise, necessarily dependent upon the particular circumstances of each individual case.” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 452.) In Williams, for example, there were several additional factors (most of which were suggested by Coleman v. Superior Court, supra, 116 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 137-140) which contributed to “substantial prejudice” to support severance.
Joinder in Williams would have brought before the jury “very prejudicial, if not inflammatory” evidence of gang membership. (Id., at p. 453.) Joinder would have had the effect of bolstering an otherwise weak case, or even of strengthening two weak cases, by the cumulative effect of the evidence. (Ibid.) Finally, the fact that Williams was a capital case—indeed, it became so only because of the joinder—compelled analysis of the severance issue “with a higher degree of scrutiny and care than is normally applied in a noncapital case. . . . Clearly, joinder should never be a vehicle for bolstering cither one or two weak cases against one defendant, particularly where conviction in both will give rise to a possible death sentence.” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 454.)
It is not only the potential for prejudice which requires careful and individualized scrutiny. As Williams teaches, an individualized assessment of the benefits of joinder is also required. Williams refused to presume that these benefits would accrue in every case. Instead, the facts of the individual case before the court were to be reviewed to determine just how weighty those benefits were. (Id., at p. 451.)
Williams properly dismissed as fiction any notion that avoidance of needless harassment of the accused was a “benefit” in a case in which the [427]*427accused himself sought severance.7 As to the benefits of judicial economy, Williams acknowledged that these vary greatly from case to case. Where there is little or no duplication of evidence, “it would be error to permit [judicial economy] to override more important and fundamental issues of justice. Quite simply, the pursuit of judicial economy and efficiency may never be used to deny a defendant his right to a fair trial.” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 451-452.)8
In light of Williams, the conclusion is inescapable that appellant demonstrated that substantial prejudice would have resulted from joinder. The prosecution offered no countervailing considerations to outweigh this showing.
All parties agreed that the two offenses were not cross-admissible. The prosecutor did not contend that any legitimate evidentiary purpose would [428]*428be served by joinder, nor did the trial court base its ruling on the assumption that either offense would be admitted in a separate trial of the other. Thus, the primary effect of the trial court’s ruling was to ensure that highly prejudicial and otherwise inadmissible evidence of other crimes would be before the jury as it decided each count.
The harm which flows from allowing the jury to hear evidence of other crimes is too well known to require much restatement. In People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303 [165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883], this court rigorously enforced the rule that evidence of other crimes may never be admitted to show the accused’s criminal propensity.9
As Williams stated, “In Thompson, we explained the rationale behind this rule thusly: ‘The primary reasoning that underlies this basic rule of exclusion is not the unreasonable nature of the forbidden chain of reasoning. [Citation.] Rather, it is the insubstantial nature of the inference as compared to the “grave danger of prejudice” to an accused when evidence of an uncharged offense is given to a jury. [Citations.] As Wigmore notes, admission of this evidence produces an “over-strong tendency to believe the defendant guilty of the charge merely because he is a likely person to do such acts.” [Citation.] It breeds a “tendency to condemn, not because he is believed guilty of the present charge, but because he has escaped unpunished from other offenses . . . .” [Citation.] Moreover, “the jury might be unable to identify with a defendant of offensive character, and hence tend to disbelieve the evidence in his favor.” [Citation.]. . . .’” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 448-449, fn. 5.)
Since Williams, this court has continued to acknowledge that evidence of other crimes is so prejudicial that its admission requires extremely careful analysis. (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 629-635 [205 Cal.Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126]; People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 83-89 [201 Cal.Rptr. 567,679 P. 2d 1 ].) Whenever an inference of the accused’s criminal disposition forms a “link in the chain of logic connecting the uncharged offense with a material fact” (Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 317) the uncharged offense is simply inadmissible, no matter what words or phrases are used to “ bestow [] a respectable label on a disreputable basis for admissibility—the defendant’s disposition.” (People v. Tassell, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 84, fn. omitted.) In People v. Alcala, supra, 36 Cal.3d 604, the error in admitting “criminal propensity” evidence was found sufficiently serious to require reversal of a capital conviction.
[429]*429Even where evidence of other crimes is relevant on some theory other than the accused’s criminal disposition, its prejudicial effect is so great that it still may not be admissible. The court must inquire whether such evidence is cumulative and whether its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. “Since ‘substantial prejudicial effect [is] inherent in [such] evidence,’ uncharged offenses are admissible only if they have substantial probative value. If there is any doubt, the evidence should be excluded.” (People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 318, fn. omitted, italics in original; see also People v. Alcala, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 631-632.)
Commentators, a number of federal courts, and the ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice had anticipated Williams's candid acknowledgement that joinder under circumstances where the joined offenses are not otherwise cross-admissible has the effect of admitting the most prejudicial evidence imaginable against an accused.
“While to the layman’s mind a defendant’s criminal disposition is logically relevant to his guilt or innocence of a specific crime, the law regards the inference from general to specific criminality so weak, and the danger of prejudice so great, that it attempts to prevent conviction on account of a defendant’s bad character. . . . [1Í] One inevitable consequence of a joint trial is that the jury will be aware of evidence of one crime while considering the defendant’s guilt or innocence of another. If the rationale of the ‘other crimes’ rule is correct, it would seem that some degree of prejudice is necessarily created by permitting the jury to hear evidence of both crimes.” (United States v. Foutz, supra, 540 F.2d at p. 736, citing Drew v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964) 331 F.2d 85, 89-90; see also United States v. Burkley (D.C. Cir. 1978) 591 F.2d 903, 919; Joint and Single Trials, supra, 74 Yale L.J. at pp. 556-560.)
Of course, joinder of noncross-admissible offenses is not in all cases sufficiently prejudicial to require severance. On the contrary, Williams explicitly rejected such a conclusion. There may be cases where evidence of one offense simply cannot reasonably affect the verdict as to the other. This was the situation, for example, in People v. Tassell, supra, 36 Cal.3d at page 89, when this court found that given the great strength of the evidence on the charged count, admission of evidence of other crimes was harmless.
Williams recognized the possibility of harmless cross-admission by considering, as a factor in the prejudice analysis, the fact that the evidence on any of the joined counts was weak. In such an event, it is more likely that joinder will affect the verdict. (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 453-454.) As the court in United States v. Burkley, supra, 591 F.2d 903 observed, [430]*430“[t]he fear is that when two or more crimes are tried together, and the evidence of one is greater than that of the other, the jury may infer that because the defendant appears to have committed at least one of the crimes, he has a propensity to commit crime .... The jury may treat this assumed criminal disposition of the defendant as evidence that he committed the other crime(s) with which he is charged.” (Id., at p. 919, italics added.)
This “weakness” factor was present here. At the time of the severance motion, the evidence that Smallwood was the perpetrator of the House homicide was extremely weak. There was no eyewitness to that shooting. Kathy Hall’s testimony described only some ambiguous conduct on Smallwood’s part and equally incriminating conduct on the part of his associates. She admitted that she had not bothered to go to the police with her observations for seven or eight months. She only decided to do so after she acquired a grudge against Smallwood. Such thin evidence must necessarily have been bolstered by allowing the jury to receive evidence of the unrelated Dunbar homicide.
Against this serious potential for prejudice, the trial court was required to weigh the advantages to be gained from this joinder. However, a review of the claimed benefits of joinder only confirms that the trial court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion. As the two offenses were not cross-admissible, there simply was no significant judicial economy to be gained from joinder.
In opposing Smallwood’s motion to sever, the prosecutor did not even argue that judicial economy would be promoted by joinder. On the contrary, he conceded that “judicial economy isn’t the reason that we are seeking to have this case joined. We aren’t saying it will cost a few more bucks to try Mr. Smallwood.” The only explicit reason he offered was a vague reference to “public policy.” He erroneously asserted that Smallwood had not offered any reason for severance which would not apply in any multiple murder case. He further made the confusing argument that the defense was seeking “two bites from the apple” by its motion to sever. His remarks suggest strongly that his only real concern was that Smallwood would have a greater chance of acquittal at a separate trial.
As the prosecutor’s argument vividly illustrates, “[t]he only real convenience served by permitting joint trial of unrelated offenses against the wishes of the defendant [was] the convenience of the prosecution in securing a conviction.” (United States v. Foutz, supra, 540 F.2d at p. 738.) This “convenience” could hardly justify forcing an accused to stand trial on such tremendously, and unnecessarily, prejudicial terms.
Finally, there remains the fact that this case is a capital one, “carrying the gravest possible consequences . . . .” (Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at [431]*431p. 454.) This factor should have prompted the trial court to “analyze the severance issue with a higher degree of scrutiny and care than is normally applied in a noncapital case.” (Ibid.) Here, the record demonstrates that the trial court ruled with virtually no “scrutiny and care,” denying a severance motion in the face of a clear showing of prejudice and despite the prosecutor’s concession that no legitimate state goals would be served by joinder. Even if such an ill-considered ruling were justifiable in a less serious case, it was impermissible where questions of life and death were at stake.
Even the wisdom of hindsight cannot cure the trial court’s error. A retrospective review of the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that the joinder was prejudicial, notwithstanding the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on the Dunbar counts. This error requires reversal of the House counts.
The record provides ample reason why Arthur Spencer’s eyewitness account of both homicides must be taken with a grain of salt.10 The jurors evidently did find Spencer to be a less-than-trustworthy witness, since they refused to convict appellant on the Dunbar counts even after Spencer described watching Smallwood shoot Dunbar.11
Yet, the jury managed to find Smallwood guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the House counts, where the only witness to corroborate the unreliable [432]*432Spencer was the almost equally unreliable Hall. Hall was a narcotics user and was facing drug-related charges when she testified at trial. She had told the police her story only after she had gotten into a fight with Smallwood and had been shot by her cousin, Sherry Ann, at his alleged instigation.12 Initially, she told the police a false story—that she had seen Smallwood shoot House. Later, she admitted she had said this only because she was angry. She then modified her story so that it provided only circumstantial and ambiguous evidence that Smallwood was a principal in the House killing.13
Given this evidence, the possibility of acquittal on the House count—if tried alone—was scarcely remote. A jury which had grave doubts about Spencer’s credibility was unlikely to return a first degree murder verdict and a true special circumstance finding based on Kathy Hall’s testimony. It is very probable that the weight of the two accusations was a major factor in Smallwood’s conviction of one of them.14
Moreover, an additional source of prejudice developed at trial. The jury heard Smallwood present a defense to the Dunbar counts but not to the House counts. His willingness to testify as to one charge could not help but leave an unfavorable impression with regard to the other. (See Joint and Single Trials, supra, 74 Yale L.J. at p. 558; ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Crim. Justice, Stds. Relating to Joinder and Severance, supra, commentary to std. 13-2.1.) “[A] defendant’s silence on one count would be damaging in the face of his express denial of the other.” (Cross v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964) 335 F.2d 987, 989.) In this respect too, joinder with the Dunbar counts must have prejudiced Smallwood’s defense of the House counts, notwithstanding the jury’s deadlock on the former.
[433]*433The error in denying severance cannot be saved by the fact that the jury was unable to agree on a verdict as to the Dunbar charges. Although it could be argued that the mistrial on the Dunbar charges demonstrates that the jury was able to distinguish between the two charges, it could be equally persuasively argued that the verdict represented a compromise resulting from the spillover effect of considering the two unrelated groups of charges. (See Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure 2d, § 227, pp. 855-857.)
Moreover, the difference in the verdicts may merely be reflective of the prejudice resulting from the fact that appellant presented a defense only as to the Dunbar charges. The jury may well have given adverse consideration to appellant’s failure to have produced any witnesses in defense against the House charges.
Thus, the erroneous joinder of the two sets of charges could have contributed substantially to appellant’s conviction on the relatively weaker House charges. The principal prosecution witnesses on those charges— Arthur Spencer and Kathy Hall—were admitted drug users whose ability to observe was less than ideal. In the Dunbar charges, by contrast, one of the principal prosecution witnesses was a disinterested observer with no apparent ties to the community.
Accordingly, this court concludes that the error in denying appellant’s motion to sever requires reversal of the judgment. It is, therefore, unnecessary to discuss any of the other contentions made by appellant.
The judgment is reversed. The order to show cause is discharged and the writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Broussard, J., Reynoso, J., and Grodin, J., concurred.