Bruton Rule

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

• United States v. Nasse
  432 F.2d 1293· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions and that most searches were lawful or any errors were harmless. It affirmed the convictions of the appellants.
• United States v. Kellerman
  431 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendants' conspiracy to distribute counterfeit credit cards and their substantive violations thereof constituted mail fraud, and that evidence admitted subject to connection was not reversible error.
• Javor v. United States
  403 F.2d 507· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to make an independent determination of the voluntariness of the confessions, instead leaving the issue to the jury.
• United States v. Gentile
  525 F.2d 252· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the mistrial was declared in the sole interest of the defendants and within the bounds of discretion, thus not barring retrial on double jeopardy grounds. It also held that the trial judge did not err in submitting an additional tape to the jury beyond their s
• United States v. Maddox
  492 F.2d 104· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a co-defendant's confession, initially inadmissible against another defendant, becomes admissible if the co-defendant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, curing any Bruton violation.
• United States v. Schmick
  904 F.2d 936· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was timely and that the evidence was sufficient to convict most appellants, but reversed one conviction due to Bruton error.
• The United States v. Hilmer Burdette Sandini
  888 F.2d 300· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the pretrial motion for severance, and any prejudice from the co-defendant's attorney's summation did not rise to the level of plain error.
• United States v. Palow
  777 F.2d 52· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, informant testimony, jury instructions, admission of statements, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Espericueta-Reyes
  631 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that subsequent searches of a vehicle after an initial border crossing can be considered valid 'extended border searches' if reasonably related in time and distance to the border, and that brief detentions and questioning during such searches do not require Miranda
• United States v. Kendricks
  623 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 28×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's extrajudicial statements, made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy, is permissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule and does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Russell v. State
  349 So. 2d 1224· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-09-23 ·cited 28×
  Russell and Jolly were convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and grand larceny. The appellate court reversed all convictions for Russell and reversed Jolly's robbery and larceny convictions, finding that the admission of Jolly's extrajudicial confession violated Russell's Si
• Ballard v. State
  323 So. 2d 297· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-12-09 ·cited 28×
  Ballard and Curtis, co-defendants tried jointly for murder and robbery, appealed their convictions. Curtis challenged the denial of severance and mistrial motions when co-defendant testimony became admissible; Ballard challenged the admission of his statements to police without a
• Adams v. State
  295 So. 2d 114· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-05-22 ·cited 28×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the arrests of the defendants were lawful due to probable cause and that any evidence obtained was admissible.
• United States ex rel. Carlos Ortiz v. Fritz
  476 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-26 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that under circuit precedent, Bruton v. United States does not apply when codefendants' confessions interlock.
• United States v. Troutman
  458 F.2d 217· 10th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the collective knowledge of the police and that the denial of the severance motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Harris
  409 F.2d 77· 4th Cir.· 1969-04-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying pretrial discovery motions, motions to sequester witnesses, motions for severance, or motions for acquittal, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• Sims v. United States
  405 F.2d 1381· D.C. Cir.· 1968-11-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge should have granted severance due to the prejudice caused by admitting co-defendants' incriminating statements with limiting instructions.
• Atwell v. United States
  398 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of McCurley's statement was improper under Miranda v. Arizona, and even if properly admitted as to McCurley, its admission against Atwell violated Bruton v. United States. Therefore, both convictions must be reversed.
• Pacheco v. State
  698 So. 2d 593· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-08-01 ·cited 27×
  John Pacheco was convicted of first-degree arson, but the appellate court reversed because the trial court improperly admitted a taped statement from a non-testifying codefendant, violating both the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause. The court remanded for a new trial on
• United States v. Taylor
  792 F.2d 1019· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, denying a motion to suppress, admitting certain testimony, denying a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution, or in its handling of prosecutorial misconduct claims, and that sufficient evidence s
• LaFRANCE v. Bohlinger
  499 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-28 ·cited 27×
  A witness's prior statement used for impeachment, if claimed to be coerced, requires a judicial inquiry into its voluntariness, but the issue of voluntariness need not be submitted to the jury.
• United States v. Angelos Markopoulos
  848 F.2d 1036· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while some evidence was improperly admitted and jury instructions were flawed, these errors were harmless and did not warrant reversal of the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Valles-Valencia
  811 F.2d 1232· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence discovered after an initial arrest, even if the arrest was illegal, is admissible if the illegality was not the 'but for' cause of the discovery. It also held that a conspiracy conviction cannot stand if all co-conspirators are acquitted.
• United States v. Bruno
  809 F.2d 1097· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a scheme to bribe public officials can constitute a scheme to defraud for wire fraud purposes, and that a variance between the indictment and proof of fraud was not prejudicial where evidence supported conspiracy to bribe.
• United States v. Rinke
  778 F.2d 581· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and Travel Act violations, but remanded one count for further findings on the 'business enterprise' element. The court also held that the use of notes to refresh memory was permissible and that evidence obtained after illegal surveill
• United States v. Sudderth
  681 F.2d 990· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed LeCompte's convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute the first marihuana load, but reversed his conviction for the second load due to insufficient evidence. Sudderth's convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Beacher Drell Roach
  590 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the absence of counsel and a transcript at a preliminary hearing requires a remand to determine prejudice, and vacated a conviction based on Supreme Court precedent regarding multiple punishments for the same offense.
• United States v. Roberts
  583 F.2d 1173· 10th Cir.· 1978-10-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the introduction of codefendant's statements did not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and that a warrantless search of an automobile was reasonable under the circumstances.
• United States v. Hansen
  583 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions or restricting cross-examination, and that most convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. However, the court reversed and remanded the perjury convictions for Steven R. Hansen due to prejudicial
• United States v. Weaver
  565 F.2d 129· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery was supported by sufficient evidence and that his constitutional rights were not violated by pre-indictment delay, speedy trial issues, or the admission of other crimes evidence.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  555 F.2d 308· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by independent surveillance, provided probable cause for Costano's arrest, and that the admission of Costano's statement against Gonzalez violated Bruton v. United States because it was not harmless error.
• United States v. Segal
  534 F.2d 578· 3d Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that restricting voir dire questions about IRS employment and limiting cross-examination on unplayed tape recordings constituted reversible error.
• United States ex rel. Edward LaBELLE v. Hon. J. Edwin LaVALLEE
  517 F.2d 750· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that LaBelle's arrest was lawful because probable cause existed for a felony, even though the arrest warrant was for a misdemeanor and invalid. The search of his car was also lawful.
• United States v. Solomon Glover
  506 F.2d 291· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 26×
  A mistrial declared without the defendant's consent, even if to protect co-defendants from prejudicial statements, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause if not necessitated by a manifest necessity for the benefit of the defendant.
• United States v. Crane
  499 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1974-07-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a tandem trial procedure, where a single jury hears evidence against codefendants first and then hears evidence against the appellant, violates the appellant's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
• United States v. Trudo
  449 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of redacted confessions in a joint trial did not violate the Bruton rule when the confessions, as presented to the jury, did not directly incriminate co-defendants.
• United States v. Long
  900 F.2d 1270· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that Speedy Trial Act calculations were correct, warrantless vehicle searches were permissible due to probable cause, and admission of a redacted co-defendant statement did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
• United States v. Myers
  892 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant may be entitled to a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically concerning the handling of a codefendant's statement and an eyewitness identification. The conviction was vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Velasquez
  885 F.2d 1076· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while voluntariness of a waiver is subject to plenary review, a trial court's direct exposure to the evidence and the defendant can provide valuable insight, warranting a remand for its determination.
• United States v. Vasquez
  874 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that the redacted confession did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights.
• United States v. Jairo Andres Castro and Oscar Ramiro Pozo
  813 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a redacted statement, that the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and that jury instructions and joinder were proper.
• Clark v. Maggio
  737 F.2d 471· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the state judge's jury charge did not violate the accused's constitutional rights, and while the admission of a codefendant's statements violated the confrontation clause, it did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Carrillo
  561 F.2d 1125· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that evidence of state law violations was admissible to prove tax fraud and that a codefendant's statement, even if hearsay, was harmless error.
• United States v. Truslow
  530 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of post-conspiracy statements that incriminate co-defendants in a joint trial, despite limiting instructions, violates the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause and requires severance or exclusion of the statements.
• United States v. Steed
  465 F.2d 1310· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements, despite a Bruton violation, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming admissible evidence of guilt. The court also found no merit in other procedural and constitutional claims.
• United States v. Budzanoski
  462 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1972-06-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the falsification of union financial records and the disbursement of funds, even if ultimately returned, violated the LMRDA, and that the statute provided adequate notice and that pretrial motions for severance, change of venue, and discovery were properly den
• United States v. Briddle
  443 F.2d 443· 8th Cir.· 1971-06-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or denial of a continuance.
• United States v. Johnson
  439 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of inadmissible hearsay testimony regarding an informant's statements was prejudicial error requiring reversal of Johnson's conviction, but affirmed Golub's conviction due to sufficient evidence and lack of reliance on invalid presumptions.
• United States v. Calarco
  424 F.2d 657· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, potentially violating due process by allowing hearsay to be used to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Carlson
  423 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bifurcate the insanity defense, nor did it err in striking the testimony related to that defense. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of a tape recording, the curtailment of cros