in trying all of the offenses together. The remedy for joinder which is permitted under Rule 8, but is prejudicial, is found in Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 14 provides in relevant part: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 14. The district court is in the best position to make, this determination. See Schaffer v. United States, 362 U.S. 511, 516, 80 S.Ct. 945, 948, 4 L.Ed.2d 921 (1960). 10 . See United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 570 & n. 20 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 340, 116
recognizing that other courts have applied rule 8b to cases involving multiple defendants but stating that it seems to us that contrary to the jurisprudence in other circuits when a joinder of offenses charged against the same defendant is challenged the literal meaning of the rule 8 requires application of rule 8a irrespective of whether multiple defendants are involved in the case holding that when there are multiple defendants rule 9b requires that a plaintiff allege facts specifying each defendants contribution to the fraud recognizing rule recognizing district court application of the same rule recognizing the same rule in texas courts