J. HOLMES, District Judge
Bertram Case "Casey" Miller has filed a motion for clarification. Document #133. That motion requests that the Court explain the reason that it reconsidered the previous order severing Casey Miller from the other defendants for trial and the reason for joining Casey Miller and Nelson Miller for trial.
When the order of severance was originally granted, the Court had little information about the defenses in the case. During the three-day span of March 14 through 16, 2006, the Court held three in camera hearings at which Casey Miller, Nelson Miller, and Melissa Horner presented information pertinent to the severance issue. Some of that information was specific and detailed as to the nature of the defense to be presented at trial. The fact that new information was provided to the Court justified revisiting the order of severance. The specific, detailed information about the nature of the defenses to be presented at trial convinced the Court that specific trial rights would be jeopardized were all four defendants to be tried together. Were all four to be tried together, the Court would be faced with the dilemma of either curtailing the defenses that some defendants would present in order to protect the right to a fair trial of other defendants or allowing full presentation of those defenses and thereby jeopardizing the rights of other defendants to exclude evidence that would be unfairly prejudicial to them.
On the other hand, as between Nelson Miller and Casey Miller, no information was presented to show that a joint trial would jeopardize the right of either defendant to fully present that defendant's defense, and no information was presented to show that either defendant's right to a fair trial would be jeopardized if the other defendant fully presented his case. No information was presented that convinced the Court that the jury would be unable to compartmentalize the evidence. The principal argument for severing Casey Miller from Nelson Miller was that most of the information to be presented by the government will be aimed at Nelson Miller, and that Casey Miller and his counsel will be forced to sit through a lengthy trial in which only a small portion of the evidence will be directed at Casey Miller. The Court has seriously considered that argument and concluded that it is not sufficient to warrant a severance of Casey Miller from Nelson Miller, which could then result in three trials of a single criminal conspiracy.