Motions to sever unrelated charges receive careful consideration under RCM 906, with military judges balancing judicial economy against prejudice to the accused. Unlike civilian practice favoring separate trials for unrelated offenses, military efficiency considerations support joint trials absent clear prejudice. The defense must demonstrate specific prejudice beyond general concerns about multiple charges. Factors include whether evidence would be cross-admissible, risk of confusing members, and spillover prejudice from inflammatory charges.
Severance analysis examines whether offenses share common schemes, victims, or locations versus being entirely distinct events. Temporal proximity matters less than logical connections. Judges consider whether limiting instructions adequately protect against improper propensity reasoning. The availability of military panels to follow instructions weighs against severance. Different levels of offense seriousness may support separation to prevent minor charges being swept into major offense convictions.
Practical considerations include witness convenience, deployment schedules, and resource conservation. Judges may order separate findings instructions or partial severance of certain specifications. Creative solutions include trying related charges together while severing distinct allegations. The burden remains on defense to show specific prejudice, not merely tactical disadvantage from joint trial. Appellate courts defer to trial judge discretion absent clear abuse. The trend accepts broader joinder in military practice than civilian courts, requiring compelling prejudice demonstrations for severance.