In People v. Meatte, 98 Mich App 74, 75, 78; 296 NW2d 190 (1980), the defendant, who was charged with second-degree murder, requested a bifurcated trial with two juries because he wanted to present defenses based on insanity and self-defense. The Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the defendant's request to try each defense to a separate jury. Id. at 80. In affirming the trial court's decision, the Court stated: The right of a defendant to raise alternative defenses does not imply a concomitant right to sketch each defense on the clean slate of a nai ve jury. The prejudice that arises in the presentation of truly inconsistent defenses before a single jury stems not from the single jury procedure but from the presentation of a defense that is rendered less credible by the defendant's choice to present a second version of the facts, i.e., alibi together with insanity or coercion. If more than one defense is credible, neither is likely to be hurt by the assertion of the other. . . . It is therefore not clear that a claim of insanity necessarily negates a defendant's claim of self-defense. Id. at 79-80.