his reasons for not wishing to testify on the other — to satisfy the court that the claim of prejudice is genuine and to enable it intelligently to weigh the considerations of “economy and expedition in judicial administration” against the defendant’s interest in having a free choice with respect to testifying. Baker, 401 F.2d at 977. ¶ 36. Defendant failed to make such a showing here. In its pretrial decision, the trial court found that defendant presented no specific evidence that its refusal to sever the counts would necessarily chill defendant’s right to remain silent or take the stand. As the court explained, defendant was presumed innocent and he had the right, regardless of the court’s decision, to decide whether to testify at trial. See Johnson, 158 Vt. at 350, 612 A.2d at 1117 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 37. By failing to renew his motion to sever
recognizing that trial court has considerable discretion in deciding whether severance is necessary when counts are joined as part of a common plan or scheme holding that issues underlying all counts were sufficiently intertwined that the separate appeal of the summary judgment counts would complicate the trial of the remaining counts holding that severance was not required when a defendant was charged with five counts of forcible rape two counts of felonious restraint three counts of kidnapping two counts of armed criminal action two counts of forcible sodomy one count of second degree assault one count of first degree robbery and one count of stealing holding that the trial court was within its discretion to exclude because the record showed considerable confusion on the part of the juror holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator