It's interesting that one lawyer doesn't object to joinder and the other lawyer does. I would think that both lawyers would be on the same page about this. Why aren't they?
I had the impression that CD's lawyer in his argument was letting the court know that a motion for severance would be forthcoming if the joinder was approved, and essentially, it would waste more time and resources than needed for that reason.
The strategy. I can't figure out what LVD's lawyer is doing here not objecting which weakens the defense's overall arguments about joinder.
It's obvious to me that a joinder is a big advantage for the prosecution.
Unless I'm not understanding the whole strategy. I sure hope our members who are lawyers can shed some light on the strategy these defense lawyers are using.