ORDER

JOHN M. GERRARD, Chief District Judge.

The defendant filed a motion to sever trial of the charges against him from those asserted against his codefendants. Filing 551. The Magistrate Judge denied his motion, filing 594, and he objects, filing 603. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and NECrimR 59.2, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and affirms the ruling of the Magistrate Judge.1

To begin with, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's reasoning and conclusions. See filing 505; filing 594. Specifically, the Court agrees that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the prejudice to him from a joint trial—if any—cannot be cured through appropriate jury instructions. Filing 505 at 7. And more importantly, the Court agrees that the defendant's motion to sever is premature, and cannot be meaningfully resolved without a real understanding of which defendants, and which charges, would actually be part of a joint trial. Filing 505 at 6. The Court also notes that the defendant's primary argument in support of his objection, see filing 603 at 1-7, is that severance is required by his proposed affirmative defense pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.—an affirmative defense that the defendant will not be presenting, as explained in the accompanying Memorandum and Order. Nor does the Court believe that the evidence the defendant demands be made available for in camera review, see filing 603 at 8-9, is essential to the Court's disposition of his motion.

Additionally, the defendant has filed a motion in limine (filing 361) seeking exclusion of evidence that is, he says, not relevant to the charges against him. The government disputes that, see filing 447, but it certainly appears that the evidence the defendant seeks to exclude is relevant to the charges against his codefendants, see filing 362. Obviously, at a joint trial, the Court's not going to exclude evidence relevant to issues in the case, although appropriate limiting instructions may be considered. But the more important problem with the defendant's motion is the same as with his motion to sever— it's impossible to say, at this point, what the evidence and issues will be at trial. Accordingly, the Court will deny the defendant's motion in limine without prejudice to reassertion 14 days before the trial date.2

Finally, the defendant has filed a request for additional peremptory challenges (filing 604) that is similarly premature: it's premised on trial conditions that are, at this point, speculative. The Court may be willing to consider affording additional peremptory challenges, based on the circumstances of trial—but, that is unknown at this point. So, the defendant's request for additional peremptory challenges will be denied without prejudice to reassertion 14 days before trial.

IT IS ORDERED: