Minor---
That consequence of refusing to sever hadn't occurred to me. But surely it must have to Judge Staley? There isn't a more fundamental right than RH's constitutional right to defend himself.
Being a nerd, now I'm wondering...are there any instructions Staley could have given/could give to the State, for the record, to forestall her ruling being considered reversible error on appeal?
Such as- a ruling in which she acknowledges RH's right to testify in his own defense, acknowledges that the charges not being severed could potentially prejudice those rights, but provides remedy with an explicit instruction to the State that they are barred from asking RH any questions on cross relating to those charges?
Even then I would think prejudice would still attach. Jurors know the charges, have heard testimony about them --including direct testimony by the involved minors--and are responsible for delivering a verdict on the charges. It would be reasonable for jurors to wonder, if RH did testify, why neither side or Ross even brought the subject up.
Whatever criticisms I have of Staley (and they are fairly legion,lol) , I can't imagine she would leave herself wide open to be reversed, especially on such a high profile trial.