With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and Valentine’s position is “I did not give the cocaine to Shivers, nor did I know that there was cocaine in the car,” “[t]he existence of antagonistic defenses does not require severance unless the defenses are actually irreconcilable.” Id. at 402. Put simply, mere hostility between defendants or one defendant’s attempt “to save himself at the expense of another” codefendant is not a sufficient ground to require severance. United States v. Boyd, 610 F.2d 521, 526 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1089,100 S.Ct. 1052, 62 L.Ed.2d 777 (1980). Accordingly, Shivers has failed to show that he suffered any prejudice, much less the clear prejudice required by Johnson, as a result of the denial of his severance motion. See also United States v. Mason, 982 F.2d 325, 328 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). As in Mason, here the evidence against both

A: holding that trial courts witness interrogation did not cause defendant prejudice when there was already overwhelming evidence showing defendants guilt
B: holding defenses not antagonistic where one defendant claimed he did not know of cocaines presence in car until codefendant threw it out of car window and there was overwhelming evidence of each defendants guilt such that a conviction would have been obtained in a separate trial
C: holding a car was broken into or entered when defendant reached in through the open window of a car
D: holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt
B.