Bruton Rule

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

• United States v. Vogt
  910 F.2d 1184· 4th Cir.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the admission of a redacted co-defendant statement was permissible and that sufficient evidence supported the RICO conviction.
• Hanrahan v. Greer
  896 F.2d 241· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the state waived its right to argue harmless error on appeal by failing to preserve the argument in the district court, and that the defendant's claim regarding judicial corruption did not meet the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception to forfeiture.
• United States v. Martinez-Nava
  838 F.2d 411· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that defendants' convictions were valid, rejecting all their appellate contentions regarding jury selection, supplemental jury instructions, admission of testimony, and prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Crockett
  813 F.2d 1310· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that Thressa Crews was improperly prohibited from cross-examining her co-defendant, Henry Crockett, violating her Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights.
• United States v. Jimenez
  780 F.2d 975· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated by the arrests without probable cause, the denial of severance due to a Bruton violation, or the denial of a mistrial for a sequestration rule violation.
• Miner v. Westlake
  478 So. 2d 1066· Fla.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the state's mere convenience in trying codefendants together is not an exceptional circumstance sufficient to extend a defendant's speedy trial time over the defendant's objection. The Court clarified that a defendant's speedy trial right takes
• United States ex rel. Alonzo Howard Jones v. Franzen
  676 F.2d 261· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without reviewing the full state court record, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8).
• United States v. Miller
  666 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence derived from an inadmissible diary was admissible if it was sufficiently attenuated from the primary taint or would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means, and that the admission of a co-defendant's confession against a defendant, when n
• United States v. Boomer
  571 F.2d 543· 10th Cir.· 1978-03-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions on the coercion defense were adequate and correctly stated the law, and that the defendants' other grounds for appeal lacked merit.
• United States v. Wright
  564 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of a mistrial, the search of a home based on a mother's consent, the limitation of cross-examination regarding a witness's alleged prostitution charge, and the denial of recalling a witness for further cross-examination were not prejudicial errors.
• United States v. Dady
  536 F.2d 675· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant's confession, along with independent evidence, did not violate the appellants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Cook
  530 F.2d 145· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a co-defendant's statement implicating another defendant, even with a limiting instruction, can violate the Bruton rule if the prejudice outweighs the probative value and is not harmless error. It also held that volunteered statements made by a defendant are a
• United States v. Napoleon Pollard and Robert Perry Herman
  509 F.2d 601· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of confessions and evidence of prior similar acts was proper, and that the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.
• United States v. Fleming
  504 F.2d 1045· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that multiple sentences for a single bank robbery under different subsections of the Federal Bank Robbery Act are improper, and that placing multiple lives in jeopardy during one robbery constitutes only one offense under § 2113(d).
• Gissendanner v. Louie L. Wainwright
  482 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that petitioners lacked standing to challenge a suppressed confession that was not used against them, and that their identification was not the fruit of that confession. The court also found that other claims lacked merit or did not rise to constitutional dimension
• United States ex rel. Robert Duff v. Zelker
  452 F.2d 1009· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-27 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Ervin Kindle
  925 F.2d 272· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err by failing to inquire into a potential conflict of interest, that contact with sequestered witnesses was not prejudicial, and that other claims regarding confrontation clause rights, severance, evidence
• United States v. Biagio Cirrincione and Tom Cirrincione
  780 F.2d 620· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the defendants knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to separate counsel and that no actual conflict of interest adversely affected their attorney's performance at trial.
• United States v. Brown
  551 F.2d 639· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-28 ·cited 21×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in holding Mary Brown's statements inadmissible, finding she made a clear waiver of her right to counsel.
• United States v. Curry
  977 F.2d 1042· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the joinder of perjury counts with conspiracy counts was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Brooks
  957 F.2d 1138· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but vacated one defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Mechanik
  735 F.2d 136· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 20×
  The majority erred in reversing conspiracy convictions based on a Rule 6(d) violation without considering demonstrable prejudice.
• United States v. Coachman
  727 F.2d 1293· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession was harmless error, and that consecutive sentences for theft and false claims were permissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Slocum
  695 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that convictions for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 must be reversed as check-kiting does not constitute a false statement or overvaluation, but affirmed other convictions and upheld the conspiracy conviction and sentencing.
• McLAUGHLIN v. Vinzant
  522 F.2d 448· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-18 ·cited 20×
  The admission of a codefendant's out-of-court statement, admissible under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights. Prejudicial publicity did not violate the defendant's Fourteenth Amendme
• United States v. Berlin
  472 F.2d 13· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-02 ·cited 20×
  A seller who knows a car is stolen can be guilty of willfully causing its interstate transportation under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) if the transportation is purposeful and an integral part of the overall scheme, not merely reasonably foreseeable.
• Holland v. Henderson
  460 F.2d 978· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that dual representation by counsel in a joint trial, where the attorney's strategy to establish an alibi for one co-defendant prejudiced the other by preventing effective cross-examination, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Davis
  459 F.2d 167· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Miranda warning was adequate, the delay in arraignment did not render the confession inadmissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c), and the defendant's admission was sufficiently corroborated. The court also found any Bruton violation to be harmless error.
• United States ex rel. Samuel Ross v. LaVALLEE
  448 F.2d 552· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-03 ·cited 20×
• United States ex rel. Clarence Lee Sloan v. McMANN
  415 F.2d 275· 2d Cir.· 1969-09-12 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition without reaching the merits, to allow New York courts to adjudicate the appellant's Bruton claim.
• Glock v. Singletary
  36 F.3d 1014· 11th Cir.· 1994-10-07 ·cited 19×
  Robert Dewey Glock II was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and robbery in 1983 and sentenced to death. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his murder conviction despite finding a Bruton violation in the admission of his nontestifying codefendant's
• United States v. Anthony DiCARLANTONIO (88-3151/3248)
  870 F.2d 1058· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 19×
  The court held that while the conspiracy convictions were valid, the substantive Hobbs Act convictions must be reversed because the government failed to prove the defendants' actions had a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.
• United States v. Jenkins
  785 F.2d 1387· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-27 ·cited 19×
  Proof of federal insurance is not an element of the offense under the first prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 1010, and a defendant waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by failing to assert it during grand jury or deposition testimony.
• Dixon v. State
  426 So. 2d 1258· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-02-11 ·cited 19×
  Robert Lee Dixon was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted robbery, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed due to significant trial errors, including the improper admission of evidence regarding the defendant's prior arrests and hearsay testimony that may have
• United States v. Burton Kaatz
  705 F.2d 1237· 10th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of evidence from a Currency Transaction Report and a civil audit was proper, and that statements of a co-defendant were admissible under the joint venture exception to the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Sacco
  563 F.2d 552· 2d Cir.· 1977-10-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, refusing to set aside convictions due to alleged wiretap taint, or denying Sacco a hearing after his escape and failure to appear.
• United States v. Akers
  542 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 19×
  The court held that convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) must be reversed because the statute requires the carrying of a firearm to be independently unlawful, not merely during the commission of a felony. Other convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Leadell Walton
  538 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the admission of interlocking confessions in a joint trial was not reversible error, as the government's independent case was strong and the confessions were cumulative, rendering any error harmless. The court also found the warrantless search of an automobile
• United States v. Donner
  497 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-03 ·cited 19×
  Convictions on conspiracy and substantive counts are affirmed, except for one substantive count which is reversed due to potential reliance on constitutionally protected speech.
• Milton v. State
  993 So. 2d 1047· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-02-28 ·cited 18×
  Dave Milton was convicted of trafficking cocaine at a retrial after a mistrial was declared due to Bruton concerns. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State violated Milton's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by questioning a codefendant (Harrison) about sta
• United States v. Winfred Payne
  923 F.2d 595· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession was a Bruton violation but harmless error, and that denial of severance and dual representation were not abuses of discretion. The denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was also affirmed.
• Verni v. State
  536 So. 2d 1162· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-12-30 ·cited 18×
  Robert Verni appeals his convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The appellate court affirmed the trafficking conviction but reversed the conspiracy conviction due to a Bruton violation in admitting an unconfronted codefendant's
• United States v. Miliet
  804 F.2d 853· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, in its cross-examination rulings, or in denying a new trial motion, affirming the convictions.
• Holland v. Attorney General of New Jersey
  777 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 18×
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession implicating the defendant, even if deemed harmless error by state courts, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and requires reversal unless the prosecution proves harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States ex rel. Miles Cole v. Lane
  752 F.2d 1210· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that fragmented co-defendant statements did not violate Bruton, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to antagonistic defenses was waived.
• United States v. Concepcion Rubio
  709 F.2d 146· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instructions on entrapment were proper, the government's use of an informant did not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal, and the defendants' post-arrest statements were admissible.
• United States v. Kiefer
  694 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that statements made by a coconspirator are admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) if the government proves a conspiracy existed, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict on Counts I, II, and III, but not on Counts IV and V.
• United States v. Cleveland
  590 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1978-12-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and that the jury instructions and limitations on cross-examination were not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Seymour Rosenwasser
  550 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance or admitting testimony of a subsequent similar offense by a co-defendant, nor in refusing to allow cross-examination of a government agent.
• Bond v. State OF Okla.
  546 F.2d 1369· 10th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession, while constitutional error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. Other claims regarding improper conviction, denial of hearings, severance, and prejudicial ev