When two or more people are accused of participating in the same criminal act, it is possible to try the defendants together in a single trial. This is often done for the sake of “judicial economy”, that is, but the trial judge must weigh these efficiency issues with the potential harm to any of the individual defendants. A judge in a criminal case may consider it appropriate to combine the causes of several defendants when their charges involve the same set of circumstances. This can help the judge simplify their schedule and resolve a case more efficiently. They won't have to go through the jury selection process multiple times, and witnesses will need to testify only once.
Combining judgments (also known as accumulation) is only acceptable if it doesn't violate the defendant's right to a fair trial. Sometimes, one or more co-defendants argue that it is necessary to separate a joint trial. This is especially likely if each co-defendant argues that the other co-defendant was solely responsible for the crime, or if each co-defendant attacks the credibility of the other co-defendant's version of events. In many states, it's legal for two co-defendants with a crime to hire the same lawyer.
However, this is not the ideal situation because it is conducive to conflicts of interest. Co-defendants in a criminal case are likely to have information about the other defendant that could be harmful to their case and often “betray” their co-defendant. It can be difficult for an attorney to represent the two co-defendants competently and diligently as needed. The United States Bar Association advises against representing co-defendants, but there is no general law prohibiting this.
The Supreme Court could change this situation. Florida is pending before the Supreme Court and asks the Court if there is a “real conflict of interest that negatively affects attorney representation” when the lawyer exercises “joint or dual representation”, that is,Having a co-defendant can mean several things as your case progresses. Co-defendants are generally not allowed to have the same lawyer. It is possible that the State wants one of you to testify against the other.
Or you can try to use statements that one of you made to the police against both of you. It is also possible that these are separate trials or that your case will be tried together. But what if they try to present the evidence at the preliminary hearing, for example, in a serious crime case? There are cases called Aranda-Bruton Rule. These cases are based on the premise that, yes, at a preliminary hearing, a co-defendant's statement can be used against another co-defendant and, therefore, as an admission, even if the defense attorney has no opportunity to cross-examine that co-defendant. In simpler terms, this rule allows a co-defendant's statement to be used as evidence against another co-defendant, even if the defense attorney cannot question the first co-defendant.
So the question is: wait a moment, are we going to allow that statement against the co-defendant? Usually, the co-defendant's lawyer doesn't have an opportunity to cross-examine that particular defendant unless he actually steps up to the witness stand. The record states that, after the defendant was charged in this case, the defendant's lawyer also agreed to represent two co-defendants, Hooper and Angell. For example, the prosecution may try to present evidence that would not be admissible in the case of a defendant being tried separately, but that could be admissible against a co-defendant in a joint trial. When you have a co-defendant in your case, it's important to have an attorney who understands the implications and protects you.
The fact that a co-defendant's statement can be used against another defendant at a preliminary hearing without the opportunity for cross-examination seems unfair.
