Bruton Rule

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

• United States v. Stewart
  579 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a defendant cannot be sentenced under both 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and § 924(c) for a single bank robbery transaction. Other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Gaines
  529 F.2d 1038· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that retained counsel's divided loyalties between the petitioner and his co-defendants, which influenced the decision on whether petitioner should testify, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, as the petitioner did not make a kno
• Santoro v. United States
  402 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-31 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the introduction of codefendants' out-of-court statements did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation because the codefendants testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination.
• Isadore Hodges, Jr. v. Rose
  570 F.2d 643· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-14 ·cited 42×
  The admission of one defendant's redacted confession, which still implicitly implicated the codefendant, violated the Bruton rule, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Lord
  565 F.2d 831· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court erred by allowing prejudicial information about a witness's stabbing to be disclosed to the jury venire and by refusing to poll the jury about exposure to prejudicial newspaper articles during the trial.
• United States v. Rajewski
  526 F.2d 149· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the denial of severance motions was not an abuse of discretion and that evidentiary rulings were proper, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Forrest Gerry, Jr.
  515 F.2d 130· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-28 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the appellants' claims of error regarding sufficiency of evidence, witness competency, prejudicial references, and evidentiary rulings were unsubstantiated.
• United States v. Johnson
  426 F.2d 1112· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-06 ·cited 42×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was established over the hospital land, the Love instruction was inapplicable, Miranda warnings were substantially complied with, severance was properly denied, and convictions for conspiracy and burglary were valid.
• Damren v. State
  696 So. 2d 709· Fla.· 1997-05-08 ·cited 41×
  Floyd Damren was convicted of first-degree murder, armed burglary, and aggravated assault in the brutal killing of Don Miller during a burglary at a mining facility, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding no reversibl
• Bryant v. State
  565 So. 2d 1298· Fla.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 40×
  Four defendants convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death appealed, claiming the prosecutor systematically excluded black jurors through peremptory challenges and that the trial court improperly joined their trials. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a
• United States v. O'Connor
  737 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the government's conduct was not outrageous, there was sufficient evidence of possession, and evidentiary rulings were not reversible error. The convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Hernandez
  608 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying pre-trial disclosure of an informant's address, denying a continuance, excluding the public during the informant's testimony, or admitting an edited co-defendant statement, and properly rejected a duress jury instruction.
• United States v. Grant
  549 F.2d 942· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights because interrogation continued after he invoked his right to counsel.
• United States v. Jess Boss Safley
  408 F.2d 603· 4th Cir.· 1969-03-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the denial of a severance was not reversible error, nor was the sufficiency of evidence regarding FDIC insurance or a flawed jury instruction, as any prejudice was either absent or harmless.
• United States v. GAY
  522 F.2d 429· 6th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court erred in excusing jurors without notice to the defendant or his counsel, requiring reversal and a new trial.
• United States v. Bigelow
  914 F.2d 966· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all defendants but vacated their sentences, remanding for resentencing consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found the 'ostrich instruction' appropriate for Lima, Bigelow's hearsay objections meritless, Vaughan's due process ch
• United States v. Brown
  699 F.2d 585· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 38×
  The admission of a post-indictment, uncounseled statement for impeachment purposes violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and its use to incriminate a co-defendant denied the co-defendant a fair trial.
• Steele v. Taylor
  684 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
• United States v. McMANUS
  560 F.2d 747· 6th Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule was properly applied, probable cause existed for the search, and the informant's identity was not required to be disclosed.
• United States v. Cusumano
  429 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Miranda warnings given to the appellants were sufficient and that the search was lawful, affirming the convictions.
• Walton v. State
  481 So. 2d 1197· Fla.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 37×
  Jason Walton was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing because Walton was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront codefendants Cooper
• United States v. Hackett
  638 F.2d 1179· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 37×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the garage and the subsequent arrest of the defendant, and that the denial of severance motions and the ex parte meetings did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Seni
  662 F.2d 277· 4th Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury instructions were adequate, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and importation, and the defendants' Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges were without merit.
• United States v. Lutz
  621 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence supported a finding of a single fraudulent scheme, the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper, and any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Donald E. Belle. Appeal of Donald Belle
  593 F.2d 487· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 36×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement in a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction, violates the Confrontation Clause if it is powerfully incriminating and the jury cannot be expected to disregard it.
• United States v. Vasquez
  534 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedures, affirming their convictions.
• United States ex rel. Alvin Nelson v. Zelker
  465 F.2d 1121· 2d Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted state remedies for his claim that the prosecutor's refusal to accept a co-defendant's plea constituted suppression of exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland.
• Caton v. United States
  407 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for dismissal, severance, admitting the overheard conversation, instructing the jury on the failure to testify, or dismissing the indictment based on transfer to federal jurisdiction.
• Espinosa v. State
  589 So. 2d 887· Fla.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 35×
  Henry Jose Espinosa was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, attempted murder, grand theft, and burglary, and sentenced to death for the murder of Teresa Rodriguez. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and sentences, rejecting numerous trial and p
• United States ex rel. William Stanbridge v. Zelker
  514 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-15 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district judge erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on the Bruton rule, as the confessions of co-defendants interlocked and did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of the other habeas corpus claims.
• United States v. Cogwell
  486 F.2d 823· 7th Cir.· 1973-10-30 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's convictions for conspiracy and substantive offenses, and that the admission of co-defendant statements did not violate the confrontation clause.
• United States v. Inez Eaton Guerrero
  756 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, severance was not required, venue changes were unwarranted, evidence was properly admitted, and speedy trial rights were not violated.
• United States v. KEY
  725 F.2d 1123· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 34×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that directly incriminated the appellant and was vital to the government's case violated the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Warren
  550 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the vessel was unconstitutional because it was conducted by agents without authority and exceeded the scope of a permissible safety inspection, and statements made without Miranda warnings were inadmissible. The court also found prose
• United States v. Morales
  477 F.2d 1309· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial confession that inculpates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even with a limiting instruction, and can constitute plain error if not objected to at trial. The court als
• Kane v. United States
  431 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to strike testimony under the Jencks Act, admitting oral testimony regarding FDIC insurance, refusing to dismiss the indictment for unrecorded grand jury proceedings, or denying a motion to sever, as no prejudice
• United States v. Venere
  416 F.2d 144· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the identification procedures and incriminating statements were admissible, and that severance was not required.
• Herschell Carl Thomas, Jr. v. United States
  409 F.2d 730· 10th Cir.· 1969-04-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the jury instructions were proper, and the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Carella
  411 F.2d 729· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for mistrial and severance, nor in refusing to provide a full transcript of a prior trial to an indigent defendant.
• United States v. Taylor
  508 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-21 ·cited 33×
  The admission of a co-defendant's statement implicating the defendant, in violation of a prior agreement and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, constitutes reversible error unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant does not 'open the door' to such evidence i
• United States v. Diosme Fernandez Hano
  922 F.3d 1272· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-30 ·cited 32×
  Diosme Fernandez Hano and Reinaldo Arrastia-Cardoso were convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy for stealing $1.7 million from an armored truck in 2009. The Eleventh Circuit addressed two issues of first impression: whether a five-year statute of limitations for DNA-implic
• United States v. Briscoe
  742 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-12 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the charges were not multiplicitous, the evidence was sufficient for attempted arson, and the admission of a co-defendant's statement was proper.
• United States v. Palumbo
  639 F.2d 123· 3d Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 32×
  A third party's statement inculpating the accused is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) if it is against the declarant's penal interest and corroborated by circumstances indicating trustworthiness, provided it does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
• United States v. Swainson
  548 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator tapes was proper, even with an acquittal on the conspiracy charge, because independent evidence established a prima facie case of conspiracy, and that the perjury convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.
• KAY v. United States
  421 F.2d 1007· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that statements made by a co-defendant during the course of a common plan or scheme are admissible against another defendant, even without a conspiracy count, if there is sufficient independent evidence of concert of action.
• United States v. Erick Mitchell
  778 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that transporting a woman across state lines for the purpose of rape constitutes an "immoral purpose" under the Mann Act, and that successive federal prosecution after a state acquittal does not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Kerris
  748 F.2d 610· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to compel disclosure of a confidential informant, admitting evidence of stolen automobiles, denying severance, denying a continuance, or in sentencing.
• United States ex rel. Otis Williams & A. D. Clark v. Franzen
  687 F.2d 944· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a conflict of interest adversely affecting a lawyer's performance warrants habeas relief, even if the state court applied an improper prejudice standard or if a petitioner arguably waived the claim on appeal.
• United States v. Pomares
  499 F.2d 1220· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a confession was voluntary despite agents advising the defendant that cooperation would be beneficial, and that the government did not waive its right to introduce an earlier oral confession.
• United States v. Stroble
  431 F.2d 1273· 6th Cir.· 1970-09-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of Robert Stroble, and that a new trial was required for both appellants due to errors in jury instructions and potential insufficiency of evidence.