MAR 3 1987
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SCOTT M. GALINDEZ CRIMINAL NO. 87-0123M JUDGE RICHEY STEPHEN SEMPLE CRIMINAL NO. 87-0117M JUDGE GESELL WILLIAM THOMAS CRIMINAL NO. 87-0114M JUDGE PARKER PHILLIP JOSEPH CRIMINAL NO. 87-0119M JUDGE GREEN ELLEN B. THOMRS CRlMINAL NO. 87-0116M JUDGE SPORKIN ANDREW HAMMERMAN CRIMINAL NO, 87-0118M JUDGE PENN ROBIN WHITE CRIMINAL No. 87-0120M
The court may order two or more indictments or informations or both to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants if there is more than one, could have been joined in a single indictment or information. The procedure shall be the same if the prosecution were under such single indictment or information.
In this case, all defendants clearly could have been joined as co-defendants under Rule 8, Fed. R. Crim. P.: defendants participated in the same act, that is, sleeping in Lafayette Park in the early morning hours of December 22, 1986, that constitutes the offense in each case.
denied, 409 U.S. 952 (1972). The preference for holding joint trials
reflects the strong federa1 policy favoring joinder because [joinder] expedites the administration of justice, reduces the congestion of the trial dockets, conserves judicial time, lessens the burden upon citizens who must sacrifice both time and money to serve upon juries, and avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses who would otherwise be called upon to testify only once.
United States v. Leonard, 494 F.2d 955, 965 (D,C. 1974) cites omitted) . Joinder further " avoid[s] delays in bringing those accused of crime to trial." Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 134 (1968). In short, "a substantial public interest supports joint trials." United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 1973).