stating federal cases interpreting federal rules similar to state rules, while not binding on this court, constitute persuasive authority
How later courts described this case
- stating federal cases interpreting federal rules similar to state rules, while not binding on this court, constitute persuasive authority
- where the sole contention of each defendant which could be claimed to be a defense was that he was innocent and the other defendant was culpable and each defendant so testified at trial, held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant severance
- "Given the role of the jury in our system of justice, we must accept the ability of that institution to resolve the difficult issues of credibility which are presented."
- “We think unfairness exists when the core of the defense of two defendants is that the other defendant committed the crime, and the State forces the defendants to stand trial together and convict each other.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRIS, Justice
(concurring).
I agree with the majority opinion except for its discussion of our holding in State v. Snodgrass, 346 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 1984). Because I adhere to my dissent in Snod-grass, I concur in result.