Bruton Rule

577 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Cervantes
  609 F.2d 974· 10th Cir.· 1979-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever the trials of the defendants, nor was there insufficient evidence to support the wife's conviction.
• Smith v. Estelle
  569 F.2d 944· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession, which implicated the petitioner, without opportunity for cross-examination and under confusing jury instructions, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. This error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Amrep Corp.
  545 F.2d 797· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing mail fraud counts prematurely and in excluding certain evidence related to the scheme to defraud and grand jury testimony.
• United States v. Burts
  536 F.2d 1140· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy and an overt act, and that no prosecutorial misconduct or other substantial errors occurred.
• United States v. Dorsett
  544 F.2d 687· 4th Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance, admitting confessions, admitting a conversation, or in its jurisdiction, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
• United States v. Shaw
  518 F.2d 1182· 4th Cir.· 1975-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if the introduction of a co-defendant's statement violated the Sixth Amendment, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict.
• Rhonnie Singleton v. State
  303 So. 2d 420· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-11-27 ·cited 4×
  In this joint trial appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions of two robbery defendants despite finding that a pretrial lineup was impermissibly suggestive and that certain extrajudicial statements raised Confrontation Clause concerns, holding that bot
• United States v. Barber
  495 F.2d 327· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress radios seized under the plain view doctrine, that the jury instructions on aiding and abetting were adequate, that certain hearsay testimony was harmless error, and that coins similar to those st
• Frazier v. State
  287 So. 2d 386· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The admission of an inculpatory statement and representation by a single attorney did not constitute reversible error.
• Leola Crum v. State
  281 So. 2d 368· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-08-15 ·cited 4×
  Leola Crum appeals her conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, challenging the admission of her own exculpatory statement made without Miranda warnings and the exculpatory statements of her co-defendants. The court affirms, holding that Crum was
• United States v. Holt
  483 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements, which tended to inculpate the appellant and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Adams
  470 F.2d 249· 10th Cir.· 1972-12-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of William's statement, though potentially violating Bruton, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and William's statement was voluntarily made after a valid Miranda waiver.
• United States v. Crowder
  464 F.2d 1284· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to bifurcate the trial and that evidence of other crimes was admissible. The court also found no plain error regarding unobjected-to statements and that the jury instructions on intent were proper.
• Walker v. State OF Fla. & Louie L. Wainwright
  466 F.2d 485· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the retroactivity of In re Gault was not presented on the record, and the juvenile was properly treated as an adult.
• Stone v. United States
  435 F.2d 1402· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The admission of incriminating pretrial statements by non-testifying codefendants was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because substantial independent evidence established the defendant's guilt.
• United States v. Silvers
  425 F.2d 707· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that convictions based on a statutory presumption invalidated by Leary v. United States must be reversed, and a conviction based on self-incrimination grounds must be dismissed.
• Nelson v. United States
  425 F.2d 188· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession, even if erroneous, was harmless error given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt and that the confession did not directly implicate the defendant.
• United States v. Weston
  417 F.2d 181· 4th Cir.· 1969-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the procurement of absentee ballots in violation of state election laws is indictable under 18 U.S.C.A. § 241, and that statements made during non-custodial interrogation are admissible without Miranda warnings.
• United States ex rel. Charles Joseph v. LaVALLEE
  415 F.2d 150· 2d Cir.· 1969-08-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession, even if redacted, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.
• United States v. Long
  415 F.2d 307· 6th Cir.· 1969-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the assignment of a single attorney to co-defendants does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless an actual conflict of interest is demonstrated.
• Waddell v. Louie L. Wainwright
  410 F.2d 736· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-03 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, allowing state courts to reconsider the case in light of Bruton v. United States.
• Grossman v. Crosby
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1233· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-31 ·cited 3×
  The court denied Petitioner Martin E. Grossman's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• United States v. Lane
  883 F.2d 1484· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(C) is constitutional as applied, that prior RICO convictions do not bar prosecution under this statute, and that the prosecutor's comment on post-arrest silence, while regrettable, did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Grillo
  527 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-05 ·cited 3×
  The admission of a co-defendant's statement against the declarant, even if indirectly implicating others, does not violate Bruton if it is not directly inculpatory of the non-declarant appellants.
• United States v. Dalton Carl Smith
  445 F.2d 861· 9th Cir.· 1971-07-20 ·cited 3×
• Glenroy Salmon v. State
  755 So. 2d 148· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred or insufficient to warrant relief.
• United States v. Lehman Howard
  998 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the judgments of conviction and sentences for all three defendants, finding no merit in their challenges regarding double jeopardy, sentencing guideline applications, and suppression of evidence.
• Beam v. Paskett
  966 F.2d 1563· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the use of dual juries in a non-capital case does not violate the Constitution unless prejudice is shown, and that Beam's death sentence was unconstitutional due to reliance on a vague aggravating factor and impermissible use of sexual history.
• FOY v. J.F. Donnelly
  959 F.2d 1307· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the content of an accomplice's confession was not disclosed to the jury to the extent necessary to violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for armed robbery, and the prosecutor d
• United States v. Gregory Wrice (90-5703) & Tommy Goods (90-5479)
  954 F.2d 406· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a document filed with the district court within forty days of judgment, even if not a formal notice of appeal, can confer jurisdiction if later validated by a motion to extend time.
• Graham v. Hoke
  946 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Cruz rule regarding the admission of codefendant confessions in joint trials should be applied retroactively, but that the admission of the codefendant's confession in this case was harmless error given the strength of the other evidence.
• United States v. Campbell
  935 F.2d 39· 4th Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that co-defendant statements were properly admitted, that the school-zone statute is constitutional, and that sentencing calculations were appropriate.
• United States v. Burroughs
  935 F.2d 292· D.C. Cir.· 1991-05-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a co-defendant's hearsay statement.
• Reddy v. Coombe
  916 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a non-testifying codefendant's incriminating statements at a joint trial violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, even if the statements interlock, if they are not substantially the same and consistent on the major elements of the crime.
• Wetz v. State
  561 So. 2d 1190· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court held that the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's statements, even if later deemed inadmissible under new precedent, was not error if the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the codefendant.
• Reddy v. Coombe
  846 F.2d 866· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the inference that the petitioner intended to rob the victim, thus sustaining his felony murder conviction.
• United States v. Murray
  843 F.2d 1582· 10th Cir.· 1988-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed a conviction for third degree murder and manslaughter, finding sufficient evidence for both, but reversed the withheld adjudication on manslaughter based on precedent that a defendant cannot be convicted of multiple homicide offenses for a single death.
• Barry v. State
  504 So. 2d 524· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-03-26 ·cited 2×
  A prosecutor's comment on a defendant's failure to testify is harmless error if the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.
• State v. Enriquez
  503 So. 2d 383· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The grant of a new trial based on the admission of a codefendant's confession was error because the codefendant testified and was available for cross-examination.
• Zuber v. State
  500 So. 2d 670· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-12-31 ·cited 2×
  Rebecca Zuber, age 16, was convicted of first-degree murder for persuading her friend Jerry Clenny to shoot her father. She appealed on grounds that evidence of her mental defects was wrongfully excluded and that a mistrial should have been granted after her codefendant's confess
• Mones v. State
  485 So. 2d 9· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-02-26 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Ferguson
  778 F.2d 1017· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that trial by a magistrate in misdemeanor cases is constitutional when consensual, and that the defendants' other contentions lacked merit.
• United States v. Merchant
  693 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficiently clear, the severance motion was properly denied, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Thomas Halliday (80-5195)
  658 F.2d 1103· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the FBI's reinitiation of interrogation after Gallagher invoked his right to counsel did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights because counsel was made available and his waiver was knowing and intelligent. Any Bruton error was harmless beyond a reasonable dou
• Elliott v. Thompson
  599 F.2d 767· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the confession voluntary and any Bruton Rule violation to be harmless error.
• Burkhart v. Stoney Lane
  591 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's redacted confession was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, despite violating the Bruton rule.
• United States ex rel. Rommel X. Wilson v. Warden, Ill. State Penitentiary
  600 F.2d 66· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's statement was harmless error because the properly admitted evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the co-defendant's admission was insignificant.
• Jacobs v. State
  358 So. 2d 1110· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-04-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that no reversible error was demonstrated by the appellant's contentions regarding the admission of a codefendant's confession, the admissibility of photographs, the denial of a motion to dismiss, or the rulings on severance and codefendant statements.
• Gadson v. State
  277 So. 2d 571· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of police testimony identifying a recorded statement from the defendant's accomplice was harmless error.
• Stubbs v. Louie L. Wainwright
  468 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-14 ·cited 2×