State v. Kman, 1511001640 1601007473

Defendants Michael Kman and Ryan Shover were jointly indicted for first-degree murder, related weapons and conspiracy counts; two co-conspirators (DiSabatino and Hess) agreed to testify for the State.
The State expects DiSabatino and Hess to testify that Kman confessed and implicated Shover; admitting those out-of-court statements at a joint trial would raise Bruton confrontation problems.
All parties and the Court agree Bruton requires severance insofar as the State seeks to use the co-conspirators’ testimony implicating Shover.
The State asked to sever but conduct a single proceeding before the same judge with two simultaneous juries (dual-jury trial) to preserve judicial economy and avoid duplicative witness testimony.
Kman does not oppose the dual-jury plan; Shover opposes it, arguing likely antagonistic defenses and potential unfair prejudice, and requests fully separate trials or, alternatively, extensive procedural safeguards if dual juries are used.
The Court granted partial severance and approved the dual-jury procedure, finding it would (1) allow admissible testimony to be presented only to Kman’s jury, (2) mitigate hypothetical antagonistic-defense prejudice, and (3) promote judicial economy, subject to detailed procedural safeguards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bruton requires severance	State: co-conspirator testimony that Kman confessed would be inadmissible in Shover’s presence; severance needed	Both defendants: agree Bruton issue exists (Kman waived no right to not testify)	Court: Severance appropriate to protect Shover’s Sixth Amendment rights
Whether trials may proceed simultaneously before two juries	State: dual juries conserve resources and avoid duplicative witness testimony	Kman: no opposition; Shover: opposes on prejudice grounds	Court: Dual-jury trial granted to balance rights and efficiency
Whether hypothetical antagonistic defenses justify full separate trials	State: speculation insufficient; must show reasonable probability of substantial prejudice	Shover: expects to assert actual innocence and blame Kman, creating antagonism	Court: Hypothetical antagonism alone insufficient; dual juries mitigate prejudice
What procedural safeguards are required for dual juries	State: implement safeguards to prevent cross-exposure of inadmissible evidence	Shover: requested two bailiffs, separate clerks/reporters, sequestration, etc.	Court: Adopted model guidelines (voir dire, separate instructions, excuse juries when needed, exhibit handling, repeated admonitions, separation and protocol)

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (confession by non-testifying co-defendant implicating another violates Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause in joint trial)
Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (mutually antagonistic defenses not prejudicial per se; Rule 14 discretion)
Stevenson v. State, 709 A.2d 619 (Del. 1998) (mere hypothesis of antagonistic defenses insufficient to require severance)
People v. Hana, 524 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. 1994) (dual juries reduce prejudice from antagonistic defenses)
Barrow v. State, 749 A.2d 1230 (Del. 2000) (Delaware Supreme Court noted dual juries as an alternative to full severance)