GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
v.
JOSE ENRIQUE RIVERA, DAVID FELIX CASTILLO. JOSE ENRIQUE RIVERA, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the co-defendant's statement was admissible because it did not incriminate the appellant and the co-defendant testified, allowing for cross-examination.
Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder. The co-defendant's statement was used at trial, which appellant argued violated the Bruton rule.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bruton Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a conviction of second degree murder. Appellant contends, inter alia, that the use at trial of a statement made by his co-defendant was error under the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). That case prohibited the use of a statement against a defendant which incriminated a co-defendant. The court recognized that an admonition by the judge will not erase from the minds of the jury those admissions of the declarant which implicate the non-declarant. In the instant case, however, the statement read to the jury contained nothing that implicated or incriminated appellant.
Bruton, supra, was grounded on the denial of a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. If his co-defendant does not testify, there can be no attack made on the incriminating statements. In the instant case, the co-defendant did testify and thus was subject to cross-examination by appellant as to his pretrial statement. .Appellant cannot be heard to argue that he was denied the right of confrontation. Wade v. Yeager, 415 F. 2d 570 (C.A.3), cert. denied 396 U.S. 974, 90 S.Ct. 466, 24 L.Ed.2d 443 (1969).
We have carefully considered each of the other arguments made by appellant and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court will, therefore, be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Wade v. Yeager, 415 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1969)
- Hodge v. Russell, 396 U.S. 974 (U.S. 1969)
- Leikett v. Cox, 396 U.S. 974 (U.S. 1969)