Bruton Rule

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

• United States v. Lewis
  786 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants were not deprived of their Sixth Amendment rights regarding counsel and that the government's use of redacted grand jury testimony was not erroneous.
• Jackson v. Scully
  781 F.2d 291· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment confrontation claim, Fourth Amendment illegal arrest claim, and Fifth Amendment Miranda rights claim were procedurally defaulted and barred from federal habeas review, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Walney Barrick Bodden
  736 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions of four defendants and dismissed the appeal of another, finding no merit in the challenges to the sufficiency of evidence or the limitations on cross-examination.
• United States v. Webb
  633 F.2d 1140· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly allowed the admission of a confession and consent to search obtained in violation of the suspect's right to counsel.
• Cook v. State
  353 So. 2d 911· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-12-28 ·cited 10×
  Four defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit sexual battery and sexual battery following a joint trial. The court affirmed their convictions despite assuming a potential Bruton violation occurred when codefendants' incriminating statements were admitted at trial, findin
• United States v. Morgan
  562 F.2d 1001· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on voir dire, suppression of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, or motions for mistrial/severance.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Ruiz
  495 F.2d 1175· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's edited statement did not violate Bruton, cross-examination limitations were proper, and the exclusion of a toxicological report was not prejudicial.
• Courtney v. United States
  486 F.2d 1108· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that any technical violation of the Bruton rule was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the joint representation, while precluding cross-examination of a co-defendant, did not prejudice the appellant given the cooperative defense strategy and the witness's s
• Horse v. State OF S.D.
  456 F.2d 1262· 8th Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the search of the automobile was valid based on probable cause, and the introduction of a codefendant's statement did not violate Bruton because the codefendant testified and was available for cross-examination.
• Ervin Simmons v. United States
  440 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a defendant's right to confrontation is not violated when a co-defendant's prior statement is admitted after the co-defendant has pled guilty and is available for cross-examination.
• Cleo F. Byrd v. Comstock
  430 F.2d 937· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-22 ·cited 10×
  A defendant cannot complain of a violation of a co-defendant's Miranda rights, and the use of a co-defendant's statement is permissible when the co-defendant testifies and is available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Cordova
  421 F.2d 471· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that cross-examination regarding the defendant's failure to cooperate with authorities after offering to do so was relevant to credibility and did not violate the Fifth Amendment. It also held that inconsistencies in the defendant's statements were admissible to sh
• Wallace v. United States
  412 F.2d 1097· D.C. Cir.· 1969-05-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that recorded conversations obtained through an informer were lawfully obtained and admissible, and that other alleged trial errors did not deny the appellants a fair trial.
• Smith v. State
  746 So. 2d 1162· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-12-01 ·cited 9×
  Patrick Smith was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery in connection with a robbery that resulted in a death. Smith appealed, challenging the trial court's admission of his codefendant Tipton's pretrial statement. The appellate court found the admission violated bot
• United States v. Barnett
  989 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentencing, finding that the drug quantity was reasonably estimated, the drug purity issue was waived, consent to search was voluntary, and the search warrant affidavit established probable cause even without disputed information.
• United States v. Soriano
  880 F.2d 192· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 9×
  The court held that mail fraud convictions based on a scheme to defraud citizens of their intangible right to honest government are invalid under McNally v. United States, but Soriano's Hobbs Act conviction was valid.
• Brownlee v. State
  478 So. 2d 467· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-11-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for severance because the codefendants' confessions were sufficiently interlocking and admissible under Parker v. Randolph, and any error was harmless.
• United States v. Hicks
  748 F.2d 854· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-07 ·cited 9×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's failure to give an alibi instruction was harmless error due to overwhelming evidence of guilt and weak alibi evidence.
• Hastings v. Hon. Barry Krischer
  840 So. 2d 267· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-01-02 ·cited 8×
  Hastings, a pro se litigant serving a 180-year sentence for manslaughter and assault convictions, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the state attorney and trial court to resentence him without habitualization, claiming procedural defects in the original 1980 sentencing. The Fou
• Tyrel Jackson v. State
  723 So. 2d 319· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-12-02 ·cited 8×
  Jackson was convicted of burglary, sexual battery, and kidnapping. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but expressed concern about the trial court's improper comments regarding courtroom procedures and its decision to prevent transcription of evidence, which complicated
• United States v. Lara
  891 F.2d 669· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for severance or the motion for judgment of acquittal, and affirmed the convictions.
• Monachelli v. Warden, SCI Graterford & the Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pa. & the Dist. Attorney of Bucks Cnty.
  884 F.2d 749· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's out-of-court statements, even with a limiting instruction, violates the other defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Terselich
  885 F.2d 1094· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove the defendant knowingly participated in a conspiracy to transport illegal drugs.
• United States v. Perlie Donald Workman
  860 F.2d 140· 4th Cir.· 1988-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a deceased witness's recorded statement, voluntarily given to an FBI agent with his attorney present, is permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) as a statement against interest with sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, and does not violate the S
• Dickey Gaines v. Thieret
  846 F.2d 402· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a codefendant's statement implicating the defendant, even if not a direct confession, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez
  842 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a co-defendant's redacted confession was harmless error, and the recorded conversation was admissible to provide context for defendant's admissions.
• Clarissa Marsh v. Richardson
  781 F.2d 1201· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement, even if redacted, violated the Confrontation Clause because it was powerfully incriminating and vital to the prosecution's case against the defendant, creating a substantial risk the jury considered it.
• United States v. Avery
  760 F.2d 1219· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Arthur Avery's perjury count was properly joined and severance was not warranted, but Alisa Avery's conviction must be reversed due to a Bruton violation from her father's grand jury testimony.
• United States v. Thunder
  714 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that admitting pretrial statements of nontestifying codefendants that incriminated each other in a joint trial violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and this error was not harmless.
• Tamilio v. Fogg
  713 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus because the co-defendants' confessions were admissible under the interlocking confession exception and their admission constituted harmless error.
• Harrison v. Owen
  682 F.2d 138· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The admission of Harrison's oral incriminating statements to police was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because his subsequent confession to a friend was nearly identical and admitted into evidence.
• Montes v. Jenkins
  626 F.2d 584· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's adoption of the petitioner's confession was not a violation of confrontation rights, and the confession itself was voluntary and not the fruit of illegal detention.
• United States ex rel. Sam Robert Faulisi & Thomas Vogt v. Thaddeus E. Pinkney
  611 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal courts are precluded from granting habeas corpus relief on Fourth Amendment claims when the state has provided an opportunity for full litigation, and that the Bruton rule does not apply to bench trials.
• United States v. Longee
  603 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The admission of one defendant's out-of-court statement inculpating a co-defendant, when the declarant does not testify, violates the Confrontation Clause and constitutes plain error, requiring reversal of the co-defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Vissars
  596 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-07 ·cited 8×
• Randolph v. Parker
  575 F.2d 1178· 6th Cir.· 1978-05-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions in a joint trial, where the co-defendants did not testify and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause under Bruton v. United States, and this violation could not be
• United States v. Tolliver
  569 F.2d 724· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exclusion of counsel from the post-identification interview was not a violation of the Sixth Amendment, and that the prosecution's withholding of the identifying witness's identity was permissible under certain conditions, with any errors being harmless in
• Thompson v. State
  300 So. 2d 301· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a conviction may be affirmed if a juror's disqualification due to a pending prosecution did not create a reasonable possibility of prejudice against the defendant.
• United States v. Burton Gene Brierly
  501 F.2d 1024· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an accomplice's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege on cross-examination does not require striking his direct testimony if the questions relate to collateral matters or impeachment, and there is no substantial danger of prejudice.
• Horton v. State
  285 So. 2d 418· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-08-31 ·cited 8×
  William Horton was convicted of rape in a joint trial with his brother Leslie. The trial court suppressed William's own statements under Miranda, but allowed Leslie's incriminating statements against William at trial despite William's lack of opportunity to cross-examine Leslie.
• United States v. Wing
  459 F.2d 428· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that admitting a co-defendant's out-of-court statement was permissible when the co-defendant testified and was subject to cross-examination, and that a prosecutor's comment during closing argument was not an improper reference to the defendant's silence.
• United States v. Brown
  452 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while admitting confessions that implicated co-defendants in violation of Bruton v. United States was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Mendoza
  441 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid because Miranda warnings were adequate, any Bruton violation was harmless error, and probable cause for arrest existed.
• Hollbrook v. United States
  441 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that jury instruction and hearsay evidence claims are not cognizable in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the prosecutor's remarks did not violate the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment confrontation claim was also denied.
• United States v. Arceneaux
  437 F.2d 924· 9th Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The dissent argues that the majority's expansion of the entrapment defense is improper and that the admission of inadmissible hearsay statements against a codefendant, even with a limiting instruction, requires reversal under Bruton v. United States.
• United States v. Bujese
  434 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant had a full opportunity to confront the confessing co-defendant, rendering the Bruton principle inapplicable.
• United States v. Zambrano
  421 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1970-02-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge's refusal to permit defense counsel to cross-examine a co-defendant was prejudicial error, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Arden Renee Cale
  418 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1969-11-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of the husband's pretrial statement did not deny the appellant effective assistance of counsel or the right to cross-examination, and any error was harmless.
• United States v. Elliott
  418 F.2d 219· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by a co-defendant's testimony, nor was the joinder of charges an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Davis
  418 F.2d 59· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.