In deciding whether to grant a motion to sever, “[t]he trial court has a wide range of discretion,” and the trial’s court’s decision must be left undisturbed, “absent a showing of clear prejudice [on the non-moving party] or abuse of discretion.” United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509, 514 (4th Cir.1995). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments in this case, the court concludes that the defendant’s motion to sever must be granted. While the court recognizes that requests for testimony from a prosecutor trying a criminal case are generally disfavored, United States v. Ziesman, 409 F.3d 941, 950 (8th Cir.2005), “the defendant’s obligation to resort to alternative means of adducing factual testimony is not absolute,” United States v. Prantil, 756 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir.1985). See Id. at 764 (<HOLDING>). At this stage of the proceedings, the court
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that there is no indication that the district court abused its discretion in denying the discoverysanction motion holding that the defendant must demonstrate not only that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for substitution of counsel but that the defendant was prejudiced by that error under strickland holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness