transcript does not indicate which defense attorneys were present; it only identifies those who spoke at the hearing. However, we do note that there was close cooperation between the defense attorneys in this case. Moreover, any defense attorneys who genuinely were surprised by the proof at trial were free to object or move for a severance at that time. Because appellants failed to do either at any time during the trial, plain error review is appropriate. 83 . In such cases, upon the defendant’s motion, the district court should consider the possibility of redacting the attorney’s name from trial exhibits and from the indictment if they indicate that the attorney may have been criminally involved in the charged offenses. See United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706, 763 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). 84 . Of course, it would be a rare case in
recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts recognizing the power of district courts to redact from indictments superfluous language which unfairly prejudices the accused recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals recognizing district courts power to admit evidence for a limited purpose recognizing power of district courts to control movement of cases from filing to final disposition