United States v. Bowser, 2:23-cr-00281

The government indicted William Bowser and several Rockwell defendants for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 17 counts of wire fraud related to funding and development of event centers operated by Noah Corporation.
Bowser was Noah Corporation's founder, while the Rockwell defendants owned Rockwell Debt Free Properties, which raised investment funds for event center properties leased by Noah.
Government alleges that Bowser and Rockwell defendants solicited $30 million from investors under the pretense of developing new centers, but no new buildings were constructed; instead, the funds were diverted for other uses.
Bowser moved to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants, arguing mutually antagonistic defenses and prejudice from potential introduction of the Rockwell defendants' prior statements.
The Rockwell defendants supported Bowser's motion for separate trials.

Issue	Bowser's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Should Bowser's trial be severed due to mutually antagonistic defenses?	Defenses conflict; would force Bowser to testify, compromising his Fifth Amendment rights	Preference for joint trials; antagonistic defenses alone don’t require severance	Denied; no actual prejudice sufficient to warrant severance
Would introduction of Rockwell defendants' prior statements prejudice Bowser in a joint trial?	Prior statements incriminate Bowser and are inadmissible against him, risking unfair prejudice	Such statements would be inadmissible or could be redacted under Bruton; no required severance	Denied; statements would be excluded or redacted, so no prejudice
Are conflicting defenses enough to require severance as a matter of law?	Points to out-of-circuit cases pre-dating Zafiro for support	Cites Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit authority supporting joint trials	Court follows Zafiro; conflicting defenses not per se grounds for severance
Should the court exercise discretion to sever due to judicial economy and potential for prejudice?	Argues prejudice outweighs efficiency	Emphasizes burden and inefficiency of separate trials	Denied; efficiency and lack of demonstrable prejudice warrant joint trial

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (establishes standard for severance due to prejudicial joinder—mutually antagonistic defenses alone rarely require it)
United States v. Clark, 717 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2013) (reiterates presumption for joint trials in conspiracy cases)
United States v. Garcia, 74 F.4th 1073 (10th Cir. 2023) (joint trials favored for efficiency and fairness)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (inadmissibility of nontestifying codefendant's confession directly implicating defendant)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (redacted confessions still inadmissible if obviously accusatory)
Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635 (2023) (redacted codefendant statements admissible if not directly accusatory)