(iii) each such defendant could have been jointly charged with at least one of the other defendants, absent an enterprise corruption count, under the provisions of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subdivision, in an accusatory instrument charging at least one such specifically included criminal act. For purposes of this subparagraph, joinder shall not be precluded on the ground that a specifically included criminal act which is necessary to permit joinder is not currently prosecutable, when standing alone, by reason of previous prosecution or lack of geographical jurisdiction.
Even in such case, the court, upon motion of a defendant or the people made within the period provided by section 255.20, may for good cause shown order in its discretion that any defendant be tried separately from the other or from one or more or all of the others. Good cause shall include, but not be limited to, a finding that a defendant or the people will be unduly prejudiced by a joint trial or, in the case of a prosecution involving a charge of enterprise corruption, a finding that proof of one or more criminal acts alleged to have been committed by one defendant but not one or more of the others creates a likelihood that the jury may not be able to consider separately the proof as it relates to each defendant, or in such a case, given the scope of the pattern of criminal activity charged against all the defendants, a particular defendant's comparatively minor role in it creates a likelihood of prejudice to him. Upon such a finding of prejudice, the court may order counts to be tried separately, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.