Does a fair and consistent application of Rule 14(a) require this Court to re-examine its decision in Zafiro and clarify the factors to be considered in determining if a federal criminal defendant suffered a serious risk that the jury was unable to make a reliable judgment as to his guilt because of prejudice from the "spill-over" effect of evidence admitted in a joint trial establishing numerous brutal violent extraneous criminal acts committed by a co-defendant so that Rule 14(a) required the remedy of severance and individual trial?

Does a fair and consistent application of Rule 14(a) require this Court to re-examine its decision in Zafiro and clarify the factors to be considered in determining if a federal criminal defendant suffered a serious risk that the jury was unable to make a reliable judgment as to his guilt because of prejudice from the spill-over' effect of evidence admitted in a joint trial establishing numerous brutal violent extraneous criminal acts committed by a co-defendant so that Rule 14(a) required the remedy of severance and individual trial?