Definition
A separate trial is a proceeding in which one defendant is tried individually, apart from co-defendants who have been jointly charged or indicted for the same offense or related offenses. The term applies most commonly in criminal law, where multiple defendants are charged together and one or more seeks to be tried independently rather than in a joint proceeding. The same concept applies in civil litigation when claims or parties that have been joined are severed for individual adjudication.
Two related but distinct uses exist:
1. SEPARATE TRIAL (criminal): The individual trial of one defendant from a group of jointly accused persons. A defendant may seek a separate trial — more precisely called a severance — when joinder with co-defendants would cause prejudice, when defenses are irreconcilably antagonistic, when a co-defendant's confession implicates the movant without opportunity for cross-examination, or when the volume and nature of evidence against co-defendants would unfairly contaminate the jury's assessment of the individual.
2. SEPARATE TRIAL (civil): The adjudication of individual claims, issues, or parties that were joined in a single action, ordered by the court in the interest of convenience, judicial economy, or to prevent prejudice.
---
Common Confusion
SEPARATE TRIAL and SEVERANCE are closely related but not identical in usage. Severance is the procedural mechanism — the court order or motion that splits joined defendants or claims. Separate trial is the result: the individual proceeding that follows. In practice, lawyers and courts often use the terms interchangeably, and in many jurisdictions the motion requesting a separate trial is formally called a motion for severance. Researchers should search for both terms when working through historical records and procedural filings.
Separate trial should also be distinguished from BIFURCATION, which refers to dividing a single trial into sequential phases (typically liability and damages) rather than splitting multiple defendants or claims into wholly separate proceedings.
---
Core Elements
In criminal practice, a court evaluating a motion for separate trial typically considers:
- PREJUDICIAL SPILLOVER: Whether evidence admissible against one defendant would unfairly influence the jury's deliberation on another.
- ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSES: Whether the defense strategies of co-defendants are mutually exclusive or directly in conflict, such that one defendant's acquittal would necessarily require convicting the other.
- BRUTON PROBLEMS: Whether a non-testifying co-defendant's out-of-court confession or statement incriminates the movant, creating Confrontation Clause complications that cannot be cured by limiting instruction.
- DISPARITY OF EVIDENCE: Whether the volume or inflammatory nature of evidence against other defendants so overwhelms the evidence specific to the movant that a fair individual assessment is impossible.
- JUDICIAL ECONOMY: Courts weigh the costs of serial trials against the fairness interests that severance would serve. Separate trials are not granted as a matter of course.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The procedural landscape for separate trials has shifted considerably, and the term's meaning in older sources requires careful reading. In nineteenth-century practice, joint indictments were common and the right to separate trial was treated more as a matter of judicial discretion than constitutional dimension. Modern doctrine — particularly post-Bruton — has given separate trial motions a Sixth Amendment overlay that older sources do not reflect.
Bouvier's entry simply directs the reader to JOINDER, which tells researchers something important: the concept was understood historically as the obverse of joinder rather than as an independent doctrine. Black's definition limits the term to the criminal context. Neither source addresses the civil severance analog in any depth, and neither anticipates the constitutional complications that now dominate serious separate trial litigation.
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should treat JOINDER, SEVERANCE, and SEPARATE TRIAL as a linked cluster. Historical materials on separate trial are most productively found under joinder doctrine rather than under the term itself. Contemporary doctrine requires attention to confrontation clause developments, conspiracy trial presumptions (federal courts maintain a strong preference for joint trials of co-conspirators), and the specific procedural rules governing severance motions in the applicable jurisdiction.
For civil researchers, the relevant procedural authority typically lives under rules governing joinder of parties (analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20) and separate trials of claims or issues (analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)), neither of which appear in the historical dictionary entries for this term.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Bouvier's together are thin on this term, and the thinness is itself informative. Black's provides the core criminal-law definition — individual trial of one among several jointly accused — without elaborating on grounds, procedure, or constitutional dimensions. This reflects the era's treatment of the matter as largely discretionary and procedurally unremarkable.
Bouvier's cross-reference to JOINDER is the more instructive response: the nineteenth-century analytical framework placed this concept entirely within joinder doctrine. Separate trial was not a freestanding right to be analyzed but a consequence of improper joinder or an equitable remedy for its hardships. The conceptual shift from "separate trial as joinder remedy" to "separate trial as independently-grounded procedural right with constitutional dimensions" is a development the historical dictionaries do not capture and that modern researchers must supply from other sources.
Neither dictionary addresses the civil analog, which developed substantially through equity practice and later through codified civil procedure.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Federal courts apply a strong presumption in favor of joint trials for defendants indicted together, particularly in conspiracy cases. State courts vary considerably: some maintain similar presumptions, others apply more permissive severance standards. The constitutional floor established by Confrontation Clause doctrine applies uniformly, but the procedural threshold for obtaining severance differs across jurisdictions.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia:
- Bench Trials (criminal_205)
- Right to Speedy Trial: Sixth Amendment and Speedy Trial Act (criminal_178)
- Right to Public Trial (criminal_179)
---