Bruton Rule

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

• United States v. Barragan
  453 F.2d 386· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-06
• United States v. Wheeler
  449 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1971-10-15
  The appellate court held that the admission of a co-defendant's extra-judicial confession, though a violation of the Bruton rule, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Rivera
  442 F.2d 407· 3d Cir.· 1971-03-01
  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.
• Sandoval v. Craven
  433 F.2d 957· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-03
  Evidence obtained in violation of the Federal Communications Act is not admissible in state court trials if the trial predated the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Florida, which made such evidence inadmissible.
• United States v. Cota-Rubalcaba
  431 F.2d 637· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-21
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a severance or admitting evidence, and that the Bruton rule was not violated.
• Seidel v. State
  240 So. 2d 521· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-09-11
  Two defendants convicted of conspiracy to commit murder appealed their convictions on the ground that their confrontation rights were violated when a co-defendant's incriminating statement was admitted at their joint trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that the admission
• Earnest Norman v. Nelson
  431 F.2d 1184· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-25
  The court held that the prisoner's confrontation clause claim was waived by failure to object at trial, and any error in admitting evidence was harmless.
• United States v. Eide
  427 F.2d 543· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-02
  The court held that testimony regarding a planned robbery was admissible to establish motive and that a co-defendant's extrajudicial statement was admissible without violating Bruton.
• United States v. Castello
  426 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-01
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions violated the appellant's Sixth Amendment rights, and this violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Wooten v. United States
  420 F.2d 376· 6th Cir.· 1970-01-30
  The court held that the Bruton rule was not controlling in this case.
• United States v. Auclair
  420 F.2d 486· 9th Cir.· 1969-12-19
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant on the marihuana counts and that the codefendant's statements were admissible.
• United States v. Gibson
  416 F.2d 326· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-24
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession and fingerprint exhibits were not reversible error.
• Jones v. State
  223 So. 2d 790· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-06-10
  Willie Jones was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape in a joint trial with four co-defendants. The Florida appellate court initially affirmed his conviction, but after the U.S. Supreme Court retroactively changed the law in Bruton v. United States to require automatic