Bruton Rule

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

• United States ex rel. Joel Smith v. Montanye
  505 F.2d 1355· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state judicial remedies and because the grounds alleged did not properly raise a constitutional issue.
• Bates v. Nelson
  485 F.2d 90· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-09 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendant statements in violation of Bruton v. United States and the admission of prior convictions invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright were harmless errors beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus pe
• Carpenter v. United States
  463 F.2d 397· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-13 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony, denying severance motions, or denying suppression and discovery motions, finding that any potential errors were either harmless or properly handled.
• United States v. Miller
  974 F.2d 953· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the use of handcuffs during an investigative stop was reasonable, and a defendant's abandonment of a bag negated a Fourth Amendment claim. It also affirmed the denial of severance motions based on a redacted confession and the admission of prior bad acts evide
• United States v. Saks
  964 F.2d 1514· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) for obtaining money by false pretenses, not § 1344(1) for defrauding a financial institution.
• Cook v. State
  595 So. 2d 994· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-03-03 ·cited 12×
  Rodney Cook was convicted of first-degree murder in a joint trial with co-defendant Tapia. The appellate court reversed his conviction and sentence, finding that the trial court violated Cook's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by admitting incriminating statements from the no
• Garrett Emil Wright v. State
  582 So. 2d 774· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-07-17 ·cited 12×
  Garrett Emil Wright was convicted of armed robbery by a jury in Florida state court. On appeal, Wright challenged the trial court's admission of hearsay testimony from an investigating officer regarding statements made by witness Willie Burnett. The appellate court affirmed the c
• United States v. George E. Moore (88-5932) & Charles R. Morse
  917 F.2d 215· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance or mistrial, admitting evidence seized based on third-party consent, admitting statements made by the defendant to his girlfriend, or in the prosecutor's closing argument comments.
• United States v. Matias
  836 F.2d 744· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding a defendant's motive to testify falsely was unbalanced and prejudicial, warranting reversal for Matías, Sr. The court affirmed Caraballo's conviction, finding no merit in his other claims.
• United States v. Pendegraph
  791 F.2d 1462· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The admission of a redacted co-defendant's statement was a Bruton violation for armed bank robbery, but harmless error for simple bank robbery, as there was other evidence of guilt for the lesser offense.
• United States v. Coppola
  788 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the co-defendant's out-of-court statements were admissible and did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper.
• United States v. Marolla
  766 F.2d 457· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that cautionary instructions were sufficient to cure prejudice from a codefendant's out-of-court statements, and that withdrawal from a conspiracy is impossible after an overt act has been committed.
• Riner v. Owens
  764 F.2d 1253· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 12×
  The majority holds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause and prejudice to overcome waiver of his Sixth Amendment claim. The dissenting judge would hold that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice and thus the claim should be denied.
• United States v. Jewell Dean Pickett (83-5252)
  746 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted confession that still allowed the jury to infer the identity of a codefendant violated the Bruton rule, and this error was not harmless as to that codefendant. Other alleged errors were found to be without merit.
• United States v. Vito Davanzo
  699 F.2d 1097· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that tape recordings were properly admitted, evidence was sufficient for convictions, jury instructions were adequate, and severance was properly denied.
• United States v. Brown
  667 F.2d 566· 6th Cir.· 1982-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed their conviction for income tax evasion.
• English v. United States
  620 F.2d 150· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel and that the introduction of a co-defendant's confession did not violate the Bruton rule because the contextual inference of guilt was not compelled.
• Andrews v. State
  372 So. 2d 143· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-06-12 ·cited 12×
  Patricia Andrews was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and petty larceny in a joint trial with co-defendant Sublette for the beating death of Louis Broeker during a home invasion. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Andrews' claims that denial of sever
• United States v. Howard
  590 F.2d 564· 4th Cir.· 1979-01-16 ·cited 12×
  While the court agrees that an instruction mentioning plea bargaining was not improper, it believes such instructions, especially those citing the Supreme Court, should be discouraged as potentially dangerous.
• Burkhart v. Stoney Lane
  574 F.2d 346· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition without examining the trial record.
• Ewather Hall v. Wolff
  539 F.2d 1146· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a violation of the Bruton rule does not mandate automatic reversal if the properly admitted evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant's admission is insignificant, and that the petitioner's confessions were voluntary under
• United States v. Valenzuela
  521 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would find that the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel and would reverse the conviction.
• United States v. Lomprez
  472 F.2d 860· 7th Cir.· 1972-12-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' statements were admissible, and various other trial errors claimed were not prejudicial, thus affirming the convictions.
• Williams v. Nelson
  457 F.2d 376· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the use of a tape recording of his conversation with a co-defendant, nor by the introduction of a co-defendant's confession, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Burton N. Pugach v. Hon. Vincent B. Mancusi
  441 F.2d 1073· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the investigatory stratagem used to elicit admissions did not violate the Fifth Amendment and that the admission of a co-defendant's confession did not violate the right of confrontation because the co-defendant testified at trial.
• United States v. Sims
  434 F.2d 258· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusion of a government witness's prior conviction documents was not prejudicial error, and the admission of a co-defendant's redacted statement did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The conviction was affirmed based on untainted counts.
• Trigg v. United States
  430 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of rebuttal testimony, as he waived his right to cross-examine his codefendant and failed to raise the issue on direct appeal.
• State v. Stubbs
  239 So. 2d 241· Fla.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a District Court of Appeal's decision to reverse a rape conviction based on the admission of a co-defendant's confession. The Supreme Court held that admitting a co-defendant's confession is not reversible error if the defendant's own confession
• United States v. Martinez
  429 F.2d 971· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, that defendants' constitutional challenges to statutes were foreclosed by precedent, and that various evidentiary and prosecutorial conduct did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Young
  422 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(1) must be vacated due to Fifth Amendment self-incrimination concerns, but convictions for illegal transfer and conspiracy stand. Admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statements was harmless error due to overwhelmin
• O'Neil v. Nelson
  422 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-26 ·cited 12×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, which inculpated the defendant but was denied by the co-defendant when testifying, violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Clayton
  418 F.2d 1274· 6th Cir.· 1969-12-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement, even if violating Bruton, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. It also held that the defendant knowingly waived his right to have his own counsel present when the verdi
• Yates v. United States
  418 F.2d 1228· 6th Cir.· 1969-11-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession, with names masked and jury instructions, did not violate the Bruton rule and did not prejudice the appellant.
• United States v. Boy DeBOSE, Jr.
  410 F.2d 1273· 6th Cir.· 1969-06-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that DeBose's conviction must be reversed due to a Bruton violation, while McIntosh's conviction is affirmed because his confession was voluntary and admissible.
• Cortez v. United States
  405 F.2d 875· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding severance, jury instructions, or the admission of a codefendant's statement.
• United States v. Gregorio de Jesus Mares
  940 F.2d 455· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession, and that the prosecutor's and judge's actions did not violate the defendants' rights.
• Vergara v. State
  486 So. 2d 14· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-03-11 ·cited 11×
  Three defendants appealed their convictions and sentences on multiple grounds, including alleged prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary errors, ineffective assistance of counsel from joint representation, and sentencing guideline departures. The Third District Court of Appeal affi
• United States v. Lewis
  716 F.2d 16· D.C. Cir.· 1983-08-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the use of a dual jury procedure in a joint trial, while innovative and carrying risks, did not violate due process as no specific prejudice was demonstrated by the appellants. Convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Tierney
  448 F.2d 37· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding the transcript, counsel, admission of a co-defendant's statement, or suppression of evidence seized abroad.
• Stubbs v. State
  222 So. 2d 228· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-02-12 ·cited 11×
  The court held that admitting written statements of co-defendants that inculpated the defendant, without the co-defendants testifying, constituted prejudicial error.
• Clarington v. State
  636 So. 2d 860· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-05-10 ·cited 10×
  Jermaine Clarington and Arnold Ancrum were convicted of murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, conspiracy, and firearm possession arising from an armed assault on a bolita house that resulted in a death. The appellate court affirmed convictions on counts I-IV but reversed the c
• United States v. Timothy Wayne Morrow (89-5418/5708) & George Mooneyham (89-5710)
  977 F.2d 222· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Morrow's conviction for aiding and abetting the carrying of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
• United States v. Beaumont
  972 F.2d 91· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not commit plain error in its jury instruction on structuring and did not commit reversible error in refusing to sever the defendant's case.
• United States v. Servando Reyes-Alvarado
  963 F.2d 1184· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed both appellants' convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of a codefendant's statement due to invited error, sufficient evidence for conviction, denial of a new trial motion, and the factual basis for a guilty plea.
• United States v. Comeaux
  955 F.2d 586· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless search of garbage was permissible, search warrants were supported by probable cause, redacted codefendant statements were admissible, and the vicarious liability instruction was proper.
• United States v. Donahue
  948 F.2d 438· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the indictment was sufficient, eyewitness identification was not impermissibly suggestive, hearsay testimony was harmless error, statements made to police were not custodial, and severance was not required.
• Delgado v. State
  574 So. 2d 1129· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-01-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's redacted confession, even if potentially incriminating, constituted harmless error due to jury instructions and overwhelming evidence, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Timothy Wayne Morrow (89-5418/5708)
  923 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions on drug manufacturing and conspiracy charges but vacated the conviction for carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense due to an inadequate jury instruction.
• United States v. Rantz
  862 F.2d 808· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel, the trial court did not err regarding the presentence report, and any error in requiring the petitioner to testify first was harmless.
• United States v. Mahomud Rawwad
  807 F.2d 294· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for severance, nor in admitting a co-defendant's statement, nor in allowing heroin exhibits to go to the jury room.