As far as I can tell from reading the plain text of the Rule 14 brought up today, if any party has responsibility - for lack of a better term - to deliver any statements/confessions made by the defendants it is entirely on the State and NOT the Defense to do so. I thought that was what Prior was trying to argue when he said that Blake was misinterpreting Rule 14.
That Rule states “
If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in a complaint, indictment or information, the court may order the state to elect between counts, grant separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants, or provide whatever other relief justice requires. In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance the court may order the attorney for the state to deliver to the court for inspection in camera any statements or confessions made by the defendants that the state intends to introduce in evidence at the trial.” Source for this — Rule 14. Relief from Prejudicial Joinder | Supreme Court
when Blake said at one point, “So given all of those reasons, the State believes that the defense has failed to meet any burden and the heavy burden that they have under Rule 14, especially that heightened burden when we're dealing with conspiracy cases, since conspiracy cases more so are favored to be joined for trial.”
I personally don’t see how the Defense has any burden specifically under Rule 14, which seems to only highlight how the Court may order the State to produce any such statements if they exist and if they plan to use at trial. JMOO though
