series of transactions and consolidation is permitted. While Nichols is charged only with perjury, Rule 8(b) specifically provides that “[a]ll defendants need not be charged in each count” in order to be tried together. Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b). Moreover, the public interest supports consolidation because the government has indicated that its proof of Nichols’ perjury will largely consist of proof of the conspiracy to murder by Church and Gilmore. If Church did commit the murders at the behest of Gilmore as alleged, then Nichols was untruthful when she claimed that Church was with her. To require substantially the same evidence to be presented twice in lengthy trials is contrary to important public goals. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993) (<HOLDING>) (citation and internal quotes omitted).
holding the interests of justice would not be served by remanding for new trial on the offense of seconddegree murder holding that cjonsistency in the verdict is not necessary and refusing to allow inconsistent verdicts to be upset by speculation or inquiry into the possibility of compromise or mistake on the part of the jury holding that joint trials promote efficiency and serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts holding that the principles applicable to inconsistent verdicts against one defendant are applicable to inconsistent verdicts between codefendants holding that the plaintiff had prudential standing because her interests in avoiding harassment via the telephone line installed in her home are not so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that they fail to fall within the tcpas zone of interests