Whether the joinder is prejudicial under Rule 14 falls "within the sound discretion of the district court." United States v. Scivola, 766 F.2d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 1985); United States v. Osman, 697 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (D. Me. 2010); see also United States v. Perkins, 926 F.2d 1271, 1280 (1st Cir. 1991). In the words of the First Circuit:

In the absence of a showing of "pervasive" prejudice that arises in relation to some charges because of their joinder to other charges, Carole Swan's spillover showing does not suggest "that a miscarriage of justice looms" or that the Rule 404 evidentiary concern that is inherent in all prosecutions that join multiple alleged frauds cannot be redressed with "careful instructions." Id. at 36-37; See also United States v. Osman, 697 F. Supp. 2d 161, 164 (D. Me. 2010); United States v. Theriault, 670 F. Supp. 2d 96, 99 (D. Me. 2009). Finally, for reasons that follow, I am ordering severance of the extortion charges based on testimonial prejudice. This partial relief will ameliorate the inherent prejudice associated with evidentiary spillover.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 14(a). The issue is “whether the joinder is prejudicial under Rule 14,” United States v. Osman, 697 F.Supp.2d 161, 163 (D.Me.2010), which falls “within the sound discretion of the district court,” Scivola, 766 F.2d at 41.See also United States v. Perkins, 926 F.2d 1271, 1280 (1st Cir.1991). In the words of the First Circuit: