IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS )
) CASE NO ST 2020 CR 00262
Plaintiff )
vs ) 14 V I C §1052(a)
) 14 V I C §§ 2253(a) 11(a) (2 Counts)
LOUVINA PRINGLE ) 14 V I C §§ 297(a)(2) 11(a) (3 Counts)
) 14 V I C §§ 2251(a)(2)(B) 11(a) (3 Counts)
) 14 V I C §§ 295(3) 11(a)
Defendant ) 14 V I C § 551(1)
Cite as 2022 VI Super 5U
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
1T1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on
1 Defendant Louvina Pringle s Motion To Sever Defendant ( Motion ) and
Defendant s Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Sever Defendant
( Memorandum ) filed March 26 2021
2 The People 5 Opposition To Defendant 5 Motion To Sever (‘ Opposition ) filed
April 9 2021'
3 Defendant 5 Reply To People 5 Opposition T0 Motion To Sever Defendants
( Reply ) filed April 19 2021 and
4 Defendant s Addendum T0 Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Sever
Defendants (‘ Addendum ) filed November 19 2021 and December 9,2021 '
1(2 Defendant 5 Motion will be denied as ajoint trial will not compromise a specific trial right
no mutually exclusive antagonistic defenses are present nor will it prevent the jury from making
a reliable determination as to guilt or innocence
' Attorney Howard Phillips filed two (2) Addendums supporting Louvina Pringle s severance motion The two (2)
Addendums are not identical word for word as they feature differences in word choice and organization However
the argumentation and substance of the Addendums are the same When summarizing the arguments the Court will
quote from the most recently filed Addendum
People v Louvma Prmgle 2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 2 of 11
I INTRODUCTION
113 On Tuesday September 15, 2020 the Defendant Louvina Pringle (‘ Louvina )2 was
arrested and later charged by Information with eleven (11) criminal counts (1) Kidnapping T0
Exact Money in violation of V I CODE ANN tit 14 § 1052(a) (2) Unauthorized Possession Of A
Firearm During The Commission Of A Kidnapping T0 Exact Money in violation of 14 V I C §§
2253(a) 11(a)' (3) Three (3) counts of Third Degree Assault in violation of 14 V I C §§ 297(a)(2)
11(a); (4) Unauthorized Possession Of A Firearm During The Commission Of A Third Degree
Assault in violation of 14 V I C §§ 2253(a) 11(a) (5) Two (2) counts of Possession Of A
Dangerous Weapon During A Third Degree Assault in violation of 14 V I C §§ 2251(a)(2)(B)
11(a) (6) First Degree Assault in violation of 14 V I C §§ 295(3) 11(a) (7) Possession OfA
Dangerous Weapon During A First Degree Assault in violation of 14 V I C §§ 2251(a)(2)(B)
11(a); (8) and Conspiracy in violation of 14 V I C § 551(1) 3 In a separate Memorandum Opinion
and Order the Court consolidated the firearm possession charges and dismissed one of the
possession of a dangerous weapon charges as they were multiplicitous
114 Louvina moves for the Court to sever her trial from her Codefendants because she will be
“substantially prejudiced by a joint trial ”4 Specifically she alleges she will be “denied her right
to confront her accuser/codefendant the trial will be vulnerable to jury confusion and Pringle
will be subject to “prejudicial spillover ’ In an Addendum she further argues that her and the
Codefendants defenses are mutually antagonistic which further warrants severance 6
A Background Information
115 Louvina’s arrest stems from events which allegedly occurred on or around September 13
and 14 2020 7 The People allege that Louvina contacted her brother Percival Pringle (‘ Percival )
on September 13 around 3 45 p m and requested that Percival assist her boyfriend Troy Harrigan
( Harrigan ) in moving two (2) generators 8 Harrigan then directed Percival to a construction site
where two (2) masked men armed with a pistol with a silencer approached Percival and began
threatening him verbally and physically, including sticking the handgun in his mouth and
demanding the payment of certain monies they believed stolen 9
116 Percival was subsequently chained beaten with both a pistol and hammer, cut with a knife
and otherwise tortured over the period of his kidnapping 10 Throughout this time Louvina was
7 As the Defendant s brother shares her last name and he is the victim in this case the Court will use the first names
for Defendant and the victim
J Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 11 27 Information 1 5
4 Def 5 Mot l
5 Def 5 Mot l
6 Def 5 Addendum 1
7 Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 1111 3 7
8 Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 11 7
9 Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 1111 8 10
1° Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 1111 12 16
People v Louvma Prmgle 2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 0f 11
allegedly in constant contact with Harrigan by phone, and she also spoke to Percival demanding
he reveal the location of the stolen eight hundred thousand dollars ($800 000 00) 11
117 After approximately one (1) day of imprisonment and torture, Percival s kidnappers grew
impatient and allegedly planned to kill him dismember his body, and dispose of it; at which point
Percival broke to escape, jumping into a nearby blue Nissan car that was still running 12 Percival
then pressed on the gas while Harrigan attempted to wrestle control of the car from him 13 A
patrolling police cruiser came upon the two (2) men fighting in the blue Nissan and a police officer
came to assist Percival who was being beaten by Harrigan; Harrigan then fled 14 Percival was
taken to the hospital and Harrigan was subsequently taken into custody ‘3 The blue Nissan was
discovered to be a rental car rented by Louvina ‘6
B Parties’ Arguments
118 Louvina recognizes that joinder of defendants is permitted under V I R CRIM P 8(b)17
and as recognized under the ruling in People18 v Najawzcz ‘9 that joint trials are the rule not the
exception 20 However, Louvina argues that an exception to the general rule is warranted in this
case as ‘she will suffer substantial prejudice from a trial joined with Codefendant Harrigan 21
Louvina believes that testimony from a Virgin Islands Police Deputy Chief will be introduced at
trial thatthe Deputy Chief reportedly heard an unsolicited admission from Harrigan, Louvina s
codefendant, admitting to the alleged crimes 22 Specifically Harrigan is reported to have
spontaneously stated ‘ yeah that guy owed me $800 000 I tied him up and I told him if I don t
get back my money I’m going to kill him ”23
119 Louvina cites to People24 v Stephens23 to argue that if joinder of defendants appears to
prejudice a defendant the Court may sever the defendants’ trial 26 Louvina argues that “Harrigan s
" Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 1111 10 ll 14
‘7 Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 1111 15 17
" Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 1111 16 19
1‘ Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 11 20 22
‘5 Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 1111 21 23
1" Affidavit of Police Detective Brian Bedminster 11 25 July 29 2021 Suppression Hearing
‘7 V 1 R CRIM P 8(b) states
The information may charge two or more defendants if they are alleged to have participated in
the same act or transaction 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
‘8 Louvina s Memorandum misidentifies this case as Piosecunon v Najaw1c Def 5 Mem .3
‘9 2019 VI Super 66
7° [d at1112 Def sMem 3
7' Def ’5 Mem 3
" Def’s Mem 1 3 4
7’ Def ’5 Mem 2
’4 Louvina s Memorandum misidentifies this case as Prosecutlon v Stephens Def 5 Mem 4
5 Case No ST 16 CR 377
2018 WL 4407034 (V 1 Super Ct Sept 12 2018)
7" Def s Mem 4
People v Louvma Prmgle
2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 of 11
overheard admission, coupled with their decades old relationship serves to prosecute [Louvina] as
well as the Prosecution s attorney’27 Louvina argues that, since her defense is she did not
participate in the kidnapping or torture, Harrigan s confession and their long standing relationship
raises the inference that she must have known what was happening and participated ”28
1110 Citing to Gov r 0f the V] v Petersen,29 Louvina argues that mutually exclusive defenses
are antagonistic and require severance 3° Louvina argues that her defense of general denial is
antagonistic to Harrigan’s admission 3‘ Principally she argues “[i]f a juror believes that Harrigan
kidnapped and tortured Pringle s brother for the money he stole from her locked bedroom, a juror
will likely as did the police during her interrogation disbelieve that Pringle did not participate
in getting Harrigan 5 money back 32 Louvina then argues that the potential prejudice of “being
tried with an alleged confessor/boyfriend for a crime against her brother’ outweighs the judicial
economy of a joined trial, citing to Umted States v Blunt 33 Analogizing to the Blunt case Louvina
contends that Harrigan s admission plus the fact that the money was taken from her locked
bedroom closet is too tempting for even a reasonable juror to infer that Pringle must have
known ”34
1111 Louvina also cites Bruton v Untied States33 for the assertion that a codefendant’ admission
used against another codefendant would be prejudicial if the confessor did not take the stand 36
Louvina states that likewise here Harrigan’s outburst would be admissible against him, but he has
a right not to testify and subject himself to cross examination, depriving Louvina of her right to
confront him 37 Louvina assetts that [u]nassailable admissions of non testifying co defendant
implicating Pringle is the epitome of prejudice and unconstitutional ”33 Louvina argues that
Harrigan s admission facially implicates her and that it is ‘ unreasonable to argue that a limiting
instruction could unmoor Harrigan s admission from Pringle ”39
1112 Finally Louvina argues that the numerous violent crime and dangerous weapon charges
will result in prej udicial spillover ”40 Louvina states that the jury will hear about Percival’s violent
torture and kidnapping and that ‘[i]t is reasonable to assume that hearing this testimony with
Harrigan and [Louvina] sitting at the counsel table will prejudice [Louvina] in the jury s mind 4'
Lastly, Louvina argues that monetary judicial economy favors severance as it will reduce costly
’7 Def 8 Mem 4
’8 Def ’5 Mem 5
9CriminalNos 156/1985 157/1985 158/1985 1985Vl LEXIS 47 (V1 Super Ct July 16 1985)
’0 Def 5 Mem 5
1 Def 5 Mem 5
’7 Def 5 Mem 5
” 930 F 3d 119 121 (3d Cir 2019) (ruling new severed trials for two married codefendants so that they may each
have an opportunity to present their cases without any unwarranted constraints on their trial rights ) Def 5 Mem 5
3‘ Def 5 Mem 7
5 39l U S 123 (1968)
3" Def 5 Mem 7
’7 Def 5 Mem 7
38 Def 5 Mem 8
’9 Def 5 Mem 8 9
4° Def 5 Mem 10
4‘ Def 5 Mem 11
People v Louvma Prmgle
2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 of ll
attorney ‘ wait time ” since in a severed trial that attorney would spend the whole time actively
representing Louvina as opposed to wasting precious hours at counsel table waiting throughout
the trial for her turn ”42
1113 The People, citing to United States v Walker,43 counter that the defendant must show
specific and compelling prejudice and courts recognize that some degree of bias is inherent in any
joint trial 44 The People point out that the facts that Harrigan and Louvina were in a lengthy
relationship and that the money was allegedly stolen from her room “are not facts that the
Defendant would be spared if her case was severed” as any family member or the Victim could
testify to them and she admitted them herself during her interview 43 The People also differentiate
the instant case from the caselaw cited by Louvina, as Harrigan’s brief admission implicates only
himself, while the cases cited feature defendants who made admissions that implicated both
themselves and their codefendants 46 Lastly, the People note that all of the Defendants in the instant
case are charged identically so there is no risk that the charges of one may spillover” and
prejudice Louvina 47
1114 Louvina replies that she requests only the severance of her and Harrigan not all
Codefendants, so she argues that she need satisfy a lesser degree of potential prejudice 48 Louvina
argues that the 1956 case Daley v Untied States49 cited by the People is distinguishable as none
of the seven defendants in that case moved to sever ’0 Louvina further submits that
1) Pringle and Harrigan s defenses are mutually exclusive because he is alleged
to have confessed to the crime where she has not‘ 2) Pringle cannot compel
Harrigan to testify that even though he is guilty she is not; and 3) Harrigan’s
confession WILL incriminate Pringle because of their 14 year intimate
relationship, plus the allegation that Harrigan s money was taken by her brother
from her room 3 I
1115 Louvina also states that, while the People argue that the facts around Louvina s
involvement will come to light regardless the Court may suppress her interview statements ’2 and
that second, if there is sufficient evidence to convict Louvina, “piling on Harrigan s statement is
unnecessary 33 Louvina argues the short length of Harrigan s confession does not matter, she is
still tied to it by the facts of the case (her relationship with the Harrigan and the Victim as well as
4’ Def 5 Mem 12
4 720 F 2d 1527 (11th Cir 198.9)
‘4 Pl 5 Opp n 3
45 Pl 5 Opp n 4 5
“‘6 Pl 5 Opp n 5
47 Pl 5 Opp n 5 6
‘8 Def 5 Reply 2 3
49 231 F2d 123 (lstCir 1956)
5" Def 5 Reply 3
5‘ Def 5 Reply 4
’7 In 2021 VI Super 9lU the Court found Louvina s statements to be voluntary and therefore the Court declined to
suppress the statements
Def 5 Reply 5
People v Louvma Pringle
2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 6 0f 11
the location of the money) 34 Additionally, Louvina argues that the danger of spillover” between
her and Harrigan is greater than between her and the other Codefendant because of their
relationship ”3
1116 In her Addendum, Louvina “submits that mutually excluswe and Irreconczlable
antagonistic defenses is an additional reason to sever the trials[ ]’ 36 Louvina argues that newly
produced evidence has come to light, namely evidence from an interview with her sister, Mary
Pringle, which she states exculpates her and inculpates Harrigan ”7 Louvina insists she is not
merely finger pointing” and she argues that her defense and Harrigan’s involve a “fundamental
disagreement over core and basic facts” because ‘ [h]er defense is that she enlisted her sister to
help her, and was pressing Harrigan to release her brother and [t]hese facts fundamentally
disagree with a claim of denial by Harrigan ‘8
1H7 Although stating in her previous Motion that Harrigan s admission to the crime is
prejudicial, Louvina in the Addendum argues that [i]t is anticipated that Harrigan will deny
kidnapping Percival Pringle and that “Pringle will not only deny any involvement in kidnapping
[Percival] her defense will implicate co defendant Harrigan ”59 Louvina also argues that these
defenses are so irreconcilable that a limiting jury instruction would be “ineffectual ”60 Louvina
further cites to a Colorado case People v Gutterrez,61 and she urges the Court to not adopt the
view that a conspiracy charge dictates a join trial 62 In that case one defendant, Gutierrez blamed
the entirety of the crime on another defendant Sanchez who in turn blamed Gutierrez and stated
he was the sole shooter 63 Louvina also argues that the prejudice against her and Harrigan need not
be symmetrical to warrant severance 64 Finally Louvina argues that because her exonerating
witness, her sister, is hostile to Harrigan, the defenses are antagonistic and a severance is
warranted 63
II LEGAL STANDARD
A Motion To Sever
fl18 Virgin Islands Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) provides forjoinder of defendants
The information may charge two or more defendants if they are alleged to have
participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or
5‘ Def 5 Reply 6
5’ Def 5 Reply 6 7
5" Def 5 Addendum 1
57 Def 5 Addendum 1
5" Def 5 Addendum 7
’9 Def 5 Addendum 4
6° Def 5 Addendum 8
6‘ 499 F 3d 367 (Colo App 2021)
6’ Def 5 Addendum 8
6’ Gutterre 499 P 3d at 371 72
6“ Def 5 Addendum 9 l l
(’5 Def 5 Addendum ll
People v Louvma Prmgle 2022 V1 Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 7 of 11
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 66
1119 Joint trials are the rule as “[t]here is a public interest in joint trials They avoid time
consuming and expensive trials They also avoid recalling witnesses conserve judicial resources
and lessen the burden on jurors who must make sacrifices ”67 Joint trials are particularly favored
when the codefendants are jointly charged, the charges can be proved by the same evidence and
the charges arise from the same occurrence transaction, or series of events 68 Virgin Islands Rule
of Criminal Procedure 14(3) provides for relief from a prejudicial joinder ‘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 ”69
1120 While many of the cases dealing with prejudicial severance interpret Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 14 because the Federal Rule and Virgin Islands Rule mirror each other, and
the Court used the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prior to adoption of the Virgin Islands
Rules of Criminal Procedure, cases interpreting the Federal Rule are highly persuasive As stated
in People v Robe; 1‘s,70 “[f]or a defendant to prevail on a motion to sever s/he has a heavy
burden and must ‘pinpoint clear and substantial prejudice resulting in an unfair trial 7‘ The Court
will grant severance only when “‘there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a
specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment
about guilt or innocence ’72
1121 Joined defendants confront ‘ the additional risk of antagonistic defenses to defend himself
properly one codefendant may have to produce evidence that incriminates another The latter can
cross examine his codefendant on those portions of the testimony that incriminate him but he is
forced to defend against two accusers the government and his codefendant 73 Mutually
antagonistic defenses may be highly prejudicial if they are mutually exclusive74 that is ‘ ‘the
“V I R CRIM P 8(b)
(’7 Gov tofthe V] v Petersen Nos 156/1985 157/1985 158/1985 1985 V1 LEXIS 47 at *3 (VI Super Ct July
16 1985) (considering a motion to sever under the substantially similar Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14) see
also People v Najawrc 2019 V1 Super 66 11 12 ( The People accurately point out thatjoint trials are the rule rather
than the exception and that Najawicz bears the burden of demonstrating substantial prejudice from ajoint trial )
68 Id (citing first UnitedStates v Gambrlll 449 F 2d 1 149 1159 (D C Cir 1971)‘ then United States v Echeles
352
F 2d 892 896 (7th Cir 1965)) ( Joint trials are especially favored where as here the defendants are jointly charged
and the offenses can be proven by the same evidence and is derived from the same transaction )
69 V 1 R CRIM P 14(a)
70 Nos SX 14 CR136 SX 14 CR 137 SX 14 CR 144 2016VI LEXIS 232 (V1 Super Ct Oct 25 2016)
7' Id at *2 (quoting UntiedStates v Qumtero 38 F 3d 1317 1343 (3d Cir 1994))
7’ [d at *2 3 (quoting UnitedStates v Riley 621 F 3d 312 335 (3d Cir 2010))
7’ Robert O Dawson, Jomt Trials ofDefendants m Criminal Cuses An Analysts ofEfiICIenCIes and Prejzldzces 77
MICH L REV 1379 1422(1979)
7‘ Gov tofthe V] v Petersen Nos 156/1985 157/1985 158/1985 1985 VI LEXIS 47 at *5 (VI Super Ct July
16 1985) (citing Umrea’States v Crawford
581 F 2d 489 491 (5th Cir 1978))
People v Louvina Prmgle
2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 8 of 11
essence or core of the defenses must be in conflict such that the jury, in order to believe the core
of one defense, must necessarily disbelieve the core of the other ”’73
1122 However “[m]utua11y antagonistic defenses are not prejudicial per se [V I ] R CRIM P
14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown; rather it leaves the tailoring of the relief
to be granted, if any to the [trial] court’s sound discretion ”76 A risk of prejudice is more likely to
occur if (a) evidence probative of a codefendant s guilt but only technically admissible against
another defendant is introduced, or (b) “if essential exculpatory evidence that would be available
to a defendant tried alone were unavailable in a joint trial ’ 77
1123 Looking to cases outside of the Virgin Islands the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
has regularly ruled that “ the mere presence of hostility among defendants or the desire of one to
exculpate himself by inculpating another [are] insufficient grounds to require separate trials ’78
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that [m]utually exclusive defenses are said to exist
when acquittal of one codefendant would necessarily call for the conviction of the other 79 An
example would be when two defendants, both charged with possession of an unregistered firearm
each assert the other defendant was the owner 80
III ANALYSIS
A Harrigan’s confession is not mutually adverse to Louvina’s defense and does not
substantially prejudice her
1124 Louvina argues that her defense that she was not a participant is at odds with Harrigan’s
defense Louvina does not state what Harrigan 3 defense is in her first Motion but rather points to
Harrigan s confession that he did commit the crime In essence, Louvina argues that her defense
that she did not do it ’ is antagonistic to Harrigan s admission that he “did do it ’ Patently
Louvina 3 defense is not mutually averse to Harrigan’s admission as one person s insistence that
she was not involved in a crime is wholly congruent with another person s declaration that he was
involved in a crime
125 The Court agrees with the People that Louvina s reliance on the facts of Bruton is
misplaced In that case “[a] postal inspector testified that Evans orally confessed to him that Evans
and petitioner committed the armed robbery 8‘ The United States Supreme Court held that a
75 United States v Lee 744 F 2d 1124 1126 (5th Cir 1984) (quotinb United States v Romanello
726 F 2d 173 177
(5th Cir 1984))
7“ Peoplev Stephens No ST 16 CR 377 2018 VI LEXIS 94 at *6 (V1 Super Ct Sept 12 2018) (quoting People
v Ponce
62 VI 458 466 (VI Super Ct June 25 2015))
77 Zafiro v United States 506 U S 534 5.39 (1993) (citing Bruton v United States 391 U S 123 (1968) then citing
lej’ordv Wamw1 Ight
588 F 2d 954 (CA5 1979) (per curiam))
78 United States v Ehrlichman
546 F 2d 910 929 (D C Cir 1976) (quoting United States v Barber
442 F 2d 517
530 (3rd Cir) cert dented 404 U S 958 (1971)) (brackets in original)
79 UmtedStates v Tootlck
952 F 2d 1078 1081 (9th Cir 1991) (citin UnItedStates v Adler
879 F 2d 491 497 (9th
Cir 1988
30 Umtedgtates v Crawford
581 F 2d 489 491 92 (5th Cir 1978)
3‘ Bruton 391 U S at 124 (emphasis added)
People v Louvina Prmgle
2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 9 0f 11
codefendant s confession implicating another codefendant was substantially prejudicial enough to
warrant severed trials because the confessing codefendant subsequently exercised their Fifth
Amendment protection against self incrimination and did not take the stand or otherwise submit
to cross examination depriving the codefendant of their right to confrontation 82
1126 Likewise in the Blunt case relied on by Louvina one of the codefendants in that case had
a defense that directly implicated her codefendant Blunt argued that her codefendant, Hall
forced her to make fraudulent calls and she acted under duress 83 However the instant case is
notably different than those two cases Harrigan s confession implicates only hzmself. he does not
use we or refer to anyone else in his spontaneous admission, he only uses “1 statements and he
takes responsibility for the actions of kidnapping tying up of Percival and threats to kill Percival
1127 Thus while Louvina argues that she is deprived of her right to confront her accuser there
is no accuser here Louvina states that jurors’ may infer, based on her relationship with Harrigan,
that she had some role in the criminal conspiracy, but such an inference would exist with or without
separate trials and is not a result of Harrigan’s confession In effect Louvina requests the Court to
recognize a theory of “accusation by inference,” a nebulous and unwieldy approach which the
Court declines to adopt
1128 While Harrigan s confession coupled with Louvina and Harrigan’s relationship could cast
Louvina in a negative light it by no means serves ‘ to prosecute” Louvina as she suggests It is
also possible that Harrigan s confession implicating only himself could be taken by a juror as
absolving Louvina of any alleged participation“ at the very least it certainly does not specifically
incriminate her The facts which do incriminate Louvina her admissions to police in a videotaped
interview her relationship with the victim and codefendant the location of the allegedly stolen
money exist entirely separate from any purported outburst by Harrigan Circumstances can be
incriminating this does not equate to a testimonial confession implicating a codefendant or
specific substantial prejudice
1129 As to Louvina 3 added argument that her and Harrigan s defenses are mutually
antagonistic the Court is not so persuaded Louvina states that she is prejudiced by Harrigan
admitting to the kidnapping, but also that she is prejudiced by Harrigan’s planned defense of
denying he was involved in the kidnapping While these lines of argumentation are at odds with
each other, Louvina and Harrigan s stated defenses are not Louvina’s argument that she was duped
into delivering her brother to Harrigan and she attempted to have him released is not mutually
antagonistic to Harrigan s alleged defense of denial that he did not do the kidnapping Harrigan is
not arguing he tried to get Percival released and that Louvina was the kidnapper he is simply
pleading he did not do it A codefendant may implicate another defendant, such implications are
only mutually antagonistic if the other defendant implicates the codefendant of the same crime in
such a way that one of them is precluded from having done it (that is it is not possible for both of
them to have committed the same crime)
8 Id at 136 37
33 Blunt 930 F 3d at 128 ( At a pre trial conference she stated to the District Court that she would be compelled to
raise a mutually antagonistic defense of duress in her trial testimony due to Hall 5 refusal to stipulate to certain facts
prior to trial At trial Blunt did indeed testify in her own defense )
People v Louvma Prmgle
2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 10 0f 11
$130 The Colorado case cited by Louvina is elucidative of that point While one of the
defendants in People v Gutterrez stated he was simply going to deny involvement his defense
was actually that his other codefendant was the real shooter 34 The court in that case stated
While it is true that Gutierrez asserted general denial as his stated theory of
defense in required written disclosures to the prosecution, it is clear from
counsel’s opening and closing statements and arguments on motions to sever as
well as the evidence presented at trial that Gutierrez did more than simply deny
involvement Bolstered by undisputed evidence that Schnaare died from four
bullets fired from one gun Gutierrez s counsel argued in his opening and closing
statements that not only was Gutierrez unaware of Sanchez 5 prior conflict with
the victim and had no involvement with the shooting but also that the evidence
indicated that Sanchez was the sole shooter 83
1131 Thus it was not that one defendant implicated another defendant who simply had a defense
of general denial it was that the other defendant’s defense directly implicated his codefendant with
specific facts and in such a way that for the one to be guilty, the other would necessarily have to
be acquitted This is because there was only one gun and one shooter, but two people accused
Here Harrigan 3 defense features no facts or theories which should the jury find them credible
they would have to find Louvina guilty as a result A jury could well find Harrigan guilty and that
Louvina had been duped or that Harrigan was guilty and Louvina was also guilty of helping trick
her brother in furtherance of the kidnapping plot or that neither Louvina nor Harrigan are guilty
That Louvina implicates her Codefendant and may proffer evidence in the form of a singular
witness who may be hostile to one of her Codefendants does not qualify as a mutually antagonistic
defense as Harrigan s general denial defense does not feature adverse facts that would necessarily
call for Louvina s conviction if believed
1132 Not only is there no specific trial right at issue undue substantial prejudice or mutually
antagonistic defenses here but there is a strong public interest in a joint trial in the instant case
All the Codefendants face the same charges There is one overarching criminal activity here
the kidnapping and torture of Percival that all are alleged to have participated in, and each
Codefendant is tied to the actions of the others through their common criminal conspiracy 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 Lastly, due to the cessation ofj ury trials during
the Covid 19 pandemic there is an even greater Court interest in bringing criminal defendants
speedily to trial and in the efficient organization of criminal jury trials Therefore Louvina 5
Motion will be denied
84 Gutterre , 499 P 3d at 371
8’ [d
People v Louvma Prmgle 2022 VI Super 5U
Case No ST 2020 CR 00262
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 11 0f 11
IV CONCLUSION
1133 Based upon the foregoing the Court finds that Harrigan s confession implicating only
himself is different from a codefendant s confession accusing another eodefendant (or implicating
themselves and another codefendant) and Louvina relationship with the confessor does not
transform Harrigan s confession into an accusation The Court further finds that (1) the facts and
circumstances implicating Louvina exist entirely separate from Harrigan s confession (2)
admission of Harrigan’s statement implicating only himself, will not serve to substantially
prejudice Louvina; and (3) Louvina s argument that severance is warranted because her and
Harrigan’s defenses are mutually antagonistic fails because her defense that she was tricked by
Harrigan and Harrigan 5 defense of general denial do not feature core conflicting facts which
would require acquittal of one of the parties should one set of facts be found credible Accordingly,
it is hereby
ORDERED that Louvina Pringle s Motion To Sever Defendant filed on March 26, 2021
is DENIED and it is further
ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be directed to
counsel of record
DATED January l8 2022 2 24 £55 5 W ?www
DENISEM F NCOIS
Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
ATTEST
TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of the Court
BY Miofl \ 0t 902;
QO( LATOYA C ACHO
Court Cler upervisor / /