As the plain text of the witness sequestration rule only references exclusion from the courtroom, its presumption of prejudice does not extend to rulings that reach beyond that exclusion, where courts have more discretion. Since deft's counsel could have consented to an alternate arrangement, and appropriate curative questioning was allowed, the fact that the codeft witnesses were in the same cells during the trial was not an abuse of discretion.
Denial of motion for new trial is not reviewed de novo when given without explanation where the grounds are apparent in the record. Denial was appropriate where only new evidence was an affidavit from another prisoner that constitutes, at most, impeachment evidence. Deft's own affidavit is not considered new evidence where it is duplicative of testimony at trial.
Aiding and abetting under the federal robbery statute is a valid predicate crime of violence due to the use of force. It was error to instruct on an alternate theory of culpability, though, as conspiracy under the same statute is not a predicate crime of violence. When one of two prongs might have served as the basis for conviction, the inquiry on appeal is a case-specific and fact-intensive one.