Skip navigation

Search

12 results
Article • July 1, 2009 • from P&J July, 2009
U.S. v. Jass, No. 06-4899-cr(L) (2nd Cir.) (569 F.3d 47) (June 16, 2009) (Judge Reena Raggi) by Defendants' child pornography convictions and sentences are affirmed, where: 1) any Sixth Amendment error due to the introduction of Defendant's redacted confession was harmless; and 2) the District Court applied an unwarranted sentencing …
Article • December 18, 2004
Bruton v. U.S., No. 705 (U.S. Supreme Court) (391 U.S. 123; 88 S.Ct. 1620) (May 20, 2068) (Justice Brennan) by In this case, two codefendants, James Evans and George Bruton, were tried jointly and convicted of armed postal robbery. At trial, Bruton testified, but Evand did not. However, prior to …
Article • November 1, 2004 • from P&J November, 2004
U.S. v. Macias, No. 03-5226 (6th Cir.) (387 F.3d 509) (October 26, 2004) (Judge Eric L. Clay) by This case is noted for its excellent, up-to-date summary of the state of the law relating to Bruton violations (Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968)). The defendant, who was convicted of …
Article • December 9, 2000
Richardson v. Marsh, No. 85-1433 (U.S. Supreme Court) (481 U.S. 200; 107 S.Ct. 1702) (April 21, 1987) (Justice Scalia) by In this case the Court somewhat limited the Bruton rule (established in Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968)) by holding that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the …
Article • June 25, 2000
Gray v. Maryland, No. 96-8653 (U.S. Supreme Court) (523 U.S. 185; 118 S.Ct. 1151) (February 9, 1998) (Justice Breyer) by Here the court held that confessions otherwise barred by the Bruton rule would not be permitted if they are redacted in a manner that leads the jury to easily draw …
Article • June 1, 2000 • from P&J June, 2000
U.S. v. Logan, No. 98-2839 (8th Cir.) (210 F.3d 820) (April 24, 2000) (Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold) by Here the en banc court granted a rehearing to determine whether the defendant was denied his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause when a nontestifying co-defendant's statement that he planned and committed …
Article • January 1, 2000 • from P&J January, 2000
U.S. v. Gonzales-Garcia, No. 1:98:CR:110 (W.D.Mich.) (73 F.Supp.2d 819) (July 13, 1999) (Judge Gordon J. Quist) by In holding that the redacted confession of a non-testifying codefendant could not be used against the defendant, the Court found two problems with the proposed redaction. "First, although the statement does not have …
Article • September 1, 1999 • from P&J September, 1999
U.S. v. Gonzalez, No. 96-5303 (11th Cir.) (183 F.3d 1315) (August 13, 1999) (Judge Joel F. Dubina) by The Court held that leaving the physical description in the redacted confession, which clearly matched on of the defendants, was a blatant violation of the rule announced in Bruton v. U.S., 391 …
Article • March 1, 1999 • from P&J March, 1999
U.S. v. Rucker, No. 97-CR-1146 (ILG) (E.D.N.Y.) (32 F.Supp.2d 545) (January 11, 1999) (Judge I. Leo Glasser) by Court held that the admission into evidence of defendants' statements to law enforcement officers, which referred to some of the defendants by name, would not violate the Bruton rule since the statements …
Article • June 1, 1998 • from P&J June, 1998
U.S. v. Peterson, No. 97-10128 (9th Cir.) (140 F.3d 819) (March 31, 1998) (Judge A. Wallace Tashima) by This case deals with the so-called Bruton rule that was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968), which held that a defendant is deprived of his …
Article • June 1, 1998 • from P&J June, 1998
U.S. v. Peterson, No. 97-10128 (9th Cir.) (140 F.3d 819) (March 31, 1998) (Judge A. Wallace Tashima) by This case deals with the so-called Bruton rule that was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968), which held that a defendant is deprived of his …
Article • January 1, 1994
Mason v. Scully, No. 93-2632, No. 963 (2nd Cir.) (16 F.3d 38) (February 7, 1994) (Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse) by In this case the petitioner prisoner was convicted of robbing a jewelry store. At trial, petitioner's attorney made no objections to respondent state's summation and to certain testimony being read …