Im sorry if im asking a silly question or if this has been answered before but why will they be trialled seperately? If they are accused of committing the same crimes against the same person then why not be tried together??
Their cases were severed (separate trials) on the date of their Plea & Arraignment. The Pros agreed to CL Attorney request and the judge allowed.
12/03/2014
11:11 AM COURT APPEARANCE LOWERY, CRYSTAL HOPE
Entry: DEF APPEARED PD APPTD WV READ & SERVICE PLEA NG DEF SEVERED BY AGREEMENT REPORT DATE SET SPEEDY TRIAL TOLLED
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=
*** But remember, CL is charged with the very same charges, Capital Murder and Kidnapping. So whatever they have that they used to get those charges (we don't know yet) they had to be pretty sure of. ***
As to WHY they can have separate trials, JMHO from reading this, its because AL confessed to the kidnapping of Beverly Carter (per the arresting document used to support the Capital Murder and Kidnapping charges for AL). And the separate trials would be so that that isn't held against CL. Again, this is just my opinion from reading.
Rule 22.3. Severance Of Defendants.
(a) When a defendant moves for a severance because an out-of-court statement of a codefendant makes reference to him but is not admissible against him, the court shall determine whether the prosecution intends to offer the statement in evidence at the trial. If so, the court shall not use a joint trial with dual juries but shall instead require the prosecuting attorney to elect one (1) of the following courses:
(i) a joint trial at which the statement is not admitted into evidence against any defendant;
(ii) a joint trial at which the statement is admitted into evidence only after all references to the moving defendant have been deleted, provided that, as deleted, the statement will not prejudice the moving defendant; or
(iii) severance of the moving defendant.
(b) The court, on application of the prosecuting attorney, or on application of the defendant other than under subsection (a), shall grant a severance of defendants:
(i) if before trial it is deemed necessary to protect a defendant's right to a speedy trial, or it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of one (1) or more defendants; or
(ii) if before trial the court determines that one (1) or more of the defendants will not receive a fair trial because of potentially prejudicial publicity against another defendant; or
(iii) if during trial, upon consent of the defendant to be severed, it is deemed necessary to achieve a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of one (1) or more defendants.
(c) When such information would assist the court in ruling on a motion for severance of defendants, the court may order the prosecuting attorney to disclose any statements made by the defendant which he intends to introduce in evidence at the trial.
Reporter's Note, 2005 Amendment: In Woolbright v. State, 357 Ark. 62, 160 S.W.3d 315 (2004), the Supreme Court barred the use of dual juries until development of a rule that specifically addresses the practical considerations necessary to safeguard the rights of defendants. The 2005 amendments modified subsection (a) to incorporate this holding.
Associated Court Rules:
Rules of Criminal Procedure
Group Title:
Article VI. Pretrial procedures: Joinder and Severance
