Renz v. Beeman

How later courts describe this case

• holding that antagonistic defenses do not require the granting of severance even when one defendant takes the stand and blames his co-defendant for the crime
• explaining that co-defendants' interests need not be compatible in all respects, but the statements for which protection is sought must be made "for a common purpose related to both defenses.”
• “[tjhere is nothing in Brady or Agurs to require that such disclosures be made before trial”
• joinder did not result in exclusion or admission of evidence or making of any argument that would not have been excludable, admissible, or made in separate trial
• under New York law, plaintiff may assert equitable estoppel against defendant if fraudulent statements of defendants actually conceal from plaintiff “facts essential to make out the cause of action”
• specifically noting the privilege applies to investigators
• desk calendar-appointment diaries admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(6)