Severing a defendant’s trial from his codefendants’ trial doesn’t affect any of the charges. A defendant charged with conspiracy, or some other crime on an accountability basis (e.g., getaway driver charged with murder because a fellow bank robber shot a guard), doesn’t have those charges go away merely because his/her trial is severed.
A severance affects what evidence the trier of fact hears, not the charges. A major example of that is the Bruton rule. Codefendant B’s confession can’t be used against defendant A, only defendant A’s own confession. (Of course B’s confession can be used against B, and the Bruton rule doesn’t help A if B him/herself testifies to finger A.)
But I don’t see this as a case where confessions (admissions of guilt made out of court and after the fact) will be playing a significant role, if any. Conspirators’ own words before the fact, definitely. Co-conspirator testimony, hopefully. If I had to hazard a guess, the logistics of having to introduce the same government evidence in multiple severed trials will trump defense arguments for severance.
That’s kind of what I was going for, though far less well put than your own explanation. I was positing that a Chesebro solo trial probably wouldn’t bring in the whole scope of evidence and connect all the dots that the solidified RICO trial will bring to bear. That he may successfully move to exclude a lot of evidence and testimony that leads to his own guilty actions but doesn’t directly include him. As one of the 19 it’s almost certain that a guilty verdict would include him by default. Tried alone, he may successfully explain or downplay his contributions to the plot well enough to wriggle free.
Each conspirator is responsible for all the actions of every other conspirator. So, in theory, Chesebro’s trial could see the identical evidence as a joint 19 defendant trial. In practice, the prosecutor may elect to trim it down to the core conduct of Chesebro.
Without waiving any objection as to the sufficiency of Defendant Kenneth John Chesebro’s filing, the State requests that this Court specially set the trial in this case to commence on October 23, 2023, which falls within the term of the "next succeeding regular court term❞ after the July-August, 2023 term of the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta Judicial Circuit, as contemplated by
Fani Willis: Okay, sure, whatever you want. I’m good with October 2023.
I’d take the view that, either Chesebro (as a lawyer) is himself ready to go to trial and already has his defense ready OR he’s an egotistical idiot with a distant understanding of reality, who’s compounding one act of self-destruction with a new one.
Trump and his new attorney have filed a motion to sever his action from Chesebro’s, which forced a setting of a trial date of October 23, 2023. Not a surprise. I’m sure his won’t be the last such motion.
With the additional complications of several defendants filing to have their cases removed to federal court, the case is fast becoming a bit of a mess. By design, no doubt. Monday will be interesting.
Harrison Floyd turned himself in without a bond arrangement and is currently being held in custody.
It’s possible that no bond deal was made, because he’s the dude who was also charged in May for assaulting an FBI agent who delivered a suboena to him.
If I had to hazard a guess, the logistics of having to introduce the same government evidence in multiple severed trials will trump 
defense arguments for severance.
