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/