Motion to sever the trials; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to provide an offer of proof or an affidavit to support defendant’s motion to sever the trials; Armed robbery under an aiding & abetting theory; MCL 750.529; Felony-firearm under an aiding & abetting theory; MCL 750.227b

In Docket No. 351693, the court held that defendant-Ford was not prejudiced by a joint trial, with separate factfinders; thus, the trial court properly denied his motion for severance. Also, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. In Docket No. 351576, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Neal’s convictions of aiding and abetting both armed robbery and felony-firearm. Thus, it affirmed the convictions and sentences of each defendant. In these consolidated appeals, Ford and Neal, who were tried jointly before separate factfinders, appealed their convictions and sentences. Ford argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the trials. The court disagreed. Even “if the trials had been severed, the prosecution could have called Neal to testify, as her testimony constituted a waiver of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and thus nothing to which Neal testified would have been barred had they been tried separately. Further, there was a partial severance through separate factfinders.” The court concluded that the “allowance of inconsistent verdicts, through the mechanism of separate factfinders, necessarily means there were not irreconcilable defenses, and thus any prejudice arising from the joint trial was thereby significantly mitigated. Moreover, the joint trial did not preclude Ford from presenting a defense.” During Ford’s closing argument, defense counsel argued that neither the surveillance videos nor the photos “of the actual shooting showed the face of the shooter; thus, there was no evidence that Ford was the shooter. Trial counsel also urged the jury to consider why Neal may have had a motive to lie regarding Ford’s involvement.” Thus, Ford failed to show “any specific trial right was violated by the joint trial; the trial court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying Ford’s motion to sever.”