Bruton Rule

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

• United States v. Caldwell
  466 F.2d 611· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence against the appellant was insufficient to sustain the conviction, particularly regarding the essential element of scienter.
• United States v. Palmieri
  456 F.2d 9· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the newspaper publicity during the trial did not prejudice the jury and that certain testimony was admissible, affirming the convictions.
• United States ex rel. John Mascia v. Hon. John Zelker
  450 F.2d 166· 2d Cir.· 1971-10-22 ·cited 2×
  A guilty plea, entered with effective counsel, waives most constitutional claims, including those arising from a co-defendant's confession, unless the coercion has an 'abiding impact' on the plea.
• Burton Farmer v. Kropp
  445 F.2d 5· 6th Cir.· 1971-07-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of codefendants' confessions did not violate the rule of Bruton v. United States, and that no federal constitutional violation occurred regarding the admission of evidence.
• Jackson v. United States
  439 F.2d 529· D.C. Cir.· 1970-11-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated because the codefendants testified and were subject to cross-examination, and that the trial judge's subsequent determination of voluntariness of the confession was sufficient.
• United States v. Rice
  435 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Bruton rule does not require reversal when the confessing codefendant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, and that the appellants' convictions were final before the Wade decision on insanity instructions.
• Duggar v. United States
  434 F.2d 345· 10th Cir.· 1970-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession, even if it implicated the defendant, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause because the codefendant was available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Santos
  430 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's hearsay statements, which were not powerfully incriminating to the defendant, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Alley v. United States
  426 F.2d 877· 8th Cir.· 1970-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's motion to vacate his conviction, as his claims of improper indictment amendment, improper severance, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper use of a codefendant's confession lacked merit.
• Coney v. State
  231 So. 2d 538· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court correctly denied the motion for relief because the admission of the statement was harmless error in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• McHENRY v. United States
  420 F.2d 927· 10th Cir.· 1970-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession during a joint trial was not a constitutional violation when the codefendant testified and the appellant also confessed, negating the prejudice addressed in Bruton.
• Puiatti v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections
  651 F. Supp. 2d 1286· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-14 ·cited 1×
  The Court held that Puiatti's petition must be granted as to the penalty phase due to a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing, but denied as to the guilt phase.
• Jeffries v. State
  776 So. 2d 335· Fla. 1st DCA· 2001-01-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in consolidating the cases or denying severance, as the codefendant testified and the defendant was aware of the strategy.
• Sturgis v. State
  233 So. 2d 166· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-03-04 ·cited 1×
  Fred Willie Sturgis was convicted of rape along with three co-defendants. The appellate court reversed because co-defendants' confessions implicating Sturgis were admitted at trial despite jury instructions to disregard them, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable do
• Snowden v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-06-04
  A codefendant's statement that does not inculpate the defendant and is used purely to provoke the defendant's reaction during custodial interrogation does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• Dixon v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Duval County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-10
  Terry Lequan Dixon challenged his state conviction for accessory after the fact on federal habeas corpus grounds, asserting that the evidence was insufficient, that the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to remain silent, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for f
• Black v. Dixon
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-10-25
  The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because the state court's decision regarding the Bruton violation was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, and the ineffective assistance of counsel claim also fails under
• Disdier v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-15
  David Disdier challenged his state convictions for racketeering conspiracy, drug trafficking conspiracy, and related offenses on federal habeas review, but the district court found most of his claims procedurally defaulted and rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims
• Hernandez v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-29
  Roberto Hernandez, a Florida prisoner, sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 based on claims of insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in connection with his convictions for robbery, kidnapping, and extortion. The court denied Herna
• Morganti v. Florida Attorney General
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-14
  Pasquale Morganti, a Florida inmate, filed a federal habeas petition challenging his 2013 convictions for burglary and grand theft, raising nine claims including allegations of insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and various trial errors.
• Haggins v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-10
  Leonard Haggins challenged his conviction for robbery and burglary based on alleged trial errors and ineffective assistance of counsel in a federal habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied the petition, finding that Haggins either failed to proper
• Sparrow v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-21
  The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied because the claims are unexhausted and procedurally barred.
• Joel v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-27
  The court held that the defendant's claims were procedurally barred or defaulted, and his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel failed to meet the required legal standard.
• Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc. v. Lamb
  118 F. Supp. 2d 322· M.D. Fla.· 2012-11-14
  The court held that Thomas and Edward Ehlen have standing as ERISA plan participants, despite not meeting technical requirements, and that the availability of remedies does not impact ERISA preemption. The court also addressed the recoverability of IRS taxes and penalties under E
• Dieudonne v. State
  993 So. 2d 640· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-11-12
  James Dieudonne appeals the summary denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court affirmed most grounds but reversed and remanded on two claims: failure to convey a plea offer and failure to object to a possible B
• United States v. Supliment Corp.
  2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7450· S.D. Fla.· 2005-04-27
  The court denied the defendants' motions to sever their trial without prejudice, finding a final ruling premature due to unknown factors.
• Sanders v. Moore
  156 F. Supp. 2d 1301· M.D. Fla.· 2001-08-14
  The court held that the admission of John Barrett's statements to his wife, Paula Barrett, violated the Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation because the statements were not made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Bodie
  990 F. Supp. 1419· S.D. Fla.· 1997-11-03
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and severance under Rule 14 was not warranted, as potential prejudice could be cured by jury instructions and redactions.
• United States v. Enriquez-Estrada
  999 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-07
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's redacted confession, substituting a neutral term for the defendant's name, does not violate the Confrontation Clause if it is not powerfully incriminating on its face. The court also held that drug ledgers are admissible as cir
• United States v. Miller
  995 F.2d 865· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-16
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and a prior guilty plea to a substantive offense did not bar a subsequent conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Payan
  992 F.2d 1387· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-31
  The court held that convictions for conspiracy and substantive offenses of transporting stolen goods are permissible, and that a codefendant's out-of-court statement implicating the defendant only by contextual implication does not violate Bruton, and that witness sequestration a
• United States v. Clark
  989 F.2d 1490· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-25
  The court held that identification testimony was admissible and that Confrontation Clause and severance issues did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Buckhalter
  986 F.2d 875· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-11
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, suppressing identification, removing a juror, or calculating sentences, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
• Heath Williams v. State
  611 So. 2d 1337· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-01-13
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's confession, even after a statutory amendment to hearsay exceptions, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Eccleston
  961 F.2d 955· D.C. Cir.· 1992-04-24
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial when inadmissible hearsay testimony, which directly implicated the defendant in drug distribution, was presented to the jury, and the government's case was otherwise weak.
• Vaden Williams v. State
  596 So. 2d 1202· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-04-08
  Convictions and sentences are affirmed despite evidentiary issues regarding officer testimony, redacted exculpatory statements, and prosecutorial argument; evidence was overwhelming and any errors did not require reversal.
• Bienbenito Fernandez v. Leonardo
  931 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-30
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for his procedural default in failing to object to the admission of his co-defendant's statement at trial, and therefore, habeas relief was improperly granted.
• United States v. Hill
  901 F.2d 880· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-24
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession that implicates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and such error is not harmless if the evidence against the defendant is not overwhelming.
• Cook v. State
  553 So. 2d 1359· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-12-20
  Elsie Cook was convicted of first-degree felony murder in the death of her young daughter. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on two errors: admission of hearsay testimony implicating the codefendant in violation of Bruton principles, and the trial co
• Darrick A. Rogers v. Norris W. McMACKIN
  884 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-28
  The admission of a nontestifying co-defendant's confession in a bench trial does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the judge is capable of compartmentalizing the evidence and not using it against the defendant.
• United States v. Valencia
  711 F. Supp. 608· S.D. Fla.· 1989-03-10
  The court held that the recording of inmate phone conversations by prison officials does not violate Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 or the Fourth Amendment, and that the recordings are admissible as evidence.
• United States ex rel. Frank Carlos Colon v. DeROBERTIS
  774 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-04
  The admission of a codefendant's statement, which differed critically from the defendant's own confession on key facts, was not harmless error under the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  721 F.2d 586· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-16
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, reversing the dismissal.
• Fungone v. State
  391 So. 2d 336· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-12-17
  Wanda Fungone appeals her conviction for receiving stolen property, arguing that hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding a juvenile suspect's statement was improperly admitted over her objection. The appellate court agrees, finding the admission violated her Sixth Amend
• Jones v. Taylor
  547 F.2d 808· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-17
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel because the alleged exculpatory testimony of a witness would not have provided a defense, and the petitioner had previously stated he had no other witnesses to call.
• United States ex rel. William Cadogan v. LaVALLEE
  502 F.2d 824· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-16
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial.
• Olds v. Neil
  482 F.2d 301· 6th Cir.· 1973-07-17
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of prejudice from a co-defendant's confession, coerced confession, denial of severance, and denial of appeal were without merit.
• Blackwell v. State
  269 So. 2d 737· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-12-05
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's confession is permissible when there is ample independent corroborative evidence of the defendant's guilt, distinguishing the case from Bruton v. United States.
• United States ex rel. Abraham Siegel v. Lennox
  460 F.2d 690· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-19
  The court held that even if a co-defendant's statement was improperly admitted in violation of Bruton, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming properly admitted evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Austin
  459 F.2d 315· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-20
  The court held that admitting prior inconsistent statements of a defense witness for impeachment purposes, after the defense called that witness, was not error, even if the statements incriminated the defendant. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the