In Zafiro v. U.S. (1993) 506 U.S. 534, defendants argued that because each of them claimed they were innocent and each accused the other of the crime, the jury would conclude that at least one of the two must be guilty. After the trial court denied Zafiro's severance motions, he opined that prejudice resulted, requiring reversal. ( Zafiro v. U. S., supra, 506 U.S. at pp. 539-540.) The Supreme Court disagreed. The high court explained that such defendants are not entitled to severance simply because they may have a better chance of acquittal in separate trials. ( Id. at p. 540.) In Zafiro, the prosecution offered evidence to establish that both defendants were guilty. Whatever prejudice may ensue as a result of joint trial in such a case could be and was cured by proper instructions which the jurors are presumed to have followed. ( Id. at pp. 540-541.)