1128 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1074, 99 S.Ct. 849, 59 L.Ed.2d 41 (1979)). “A variety of factors can be relevant to this determination depending upon the facts of the particular case.” Id. In this case, there is no claim that Van Cauwenberghe’s and Blair’s defenses were mutually exclusive. “Only where the acceptance of one party’s defense will preclude the acquittal of the other party does the existence of antagonistic defenses mandate severance.” Id. Van Cauwenberghe only claims that he suffered from aspersions of guilt by association with the more culpable Blair. However, the mere fact that a criminal defendant is jointly tried with a more culpable co-defendant is not alone sufficient to constitute an abuse of the district court’s discretion. See Ramirez, 710 F.2d at 547 (<HOLDING>). We do not believe that evidence of Blair’s
holding that where there is evidence sufficient to sustain finding of trial court that prejudicial error was contained in record there is no basis for stating that trial court abused discretion in granting new trial holding that improper use of a summary chart was harmless because the evidence was merely cumulative and there was overwhelming evidence of the charged crime holding that joint trial with codefendant against whom there was overwhelming evidence not prejudicial when there was little chance of it spilling over holding that trial courts witness interrogation did not cause defendant prejudice when there was already overwhelming evidence showing defendants guilt holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt