Bruton Rule

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

• Hawkins v. United States
  417 F.2d 1271· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that no reversible error occurred during the trial regarding witness testimony or prosecutorial remarks.
• United States ex rel. Nelson M. Garcia v. Follette
  417 F.2d 709· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the pretrial identification procedures did not violate due process and that other objections raised were without merit.
• Garcia v. State
  226 So. 2d 17· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-06-24 ·cited 8×
  Carol Garcia was convicted of manslaughter alongside two co-defendants after being tried jointly for the murder of Ivan R. Rousseau. The court erred in admitting confessions of co-defendants that inculpated Garcia without allowing her to cross-examine them, violating her constitu
• United States v. Detroit Vital Foods, Inc.
  407 F.2d 570· 6th Cir.· 1969-02-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the individual defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated when they were compelled to answer interrogatories in a civil case, the answers to which were used to secure their criminal indictment.
• Walsh v. State
  596 So. 2d 756· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-04-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant's cross-examination opened the door to the admission of his codefendant's full confession, and that the trial court erred by not reviewing a completed scoresheet before sentencing.
• United States v. Rimar
  558 F.2d 1271· 6th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the unusual trial procedure with simultaneous prosecutions before two juries and the judge did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial, and other contentions were without merit.
• United States v. Velasco
  953 F.2d 1467· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-17 ·cited 6×
• Glock v. Dugger
  752 F. Supp. 1027· M.D. Fla.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of codefendants' confessions, even if interlocking, was permissible under certain circumstances indicating reliability, and that counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• White v. Lewis
  874 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 6×
  A motion to dismiss is a proper pleading in a habeas corpus action, and a petitioner must demonstrate cause and prejudice for any procedural default in state court to be entitled to federal habeas relief.
• United States v. Hernandez
  842 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the trial in the defendants' voluntary absence, nor in denying their motions for severance or suppression of evidence.
• Jacquelin Cipollina v. State
  501 So. 2d 2· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-09-17 ·cited 6×
  Jacquelin Cipollina appeals her third degree murder conviction in the death of her six-year-old son. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecution committed a Brady violation by failing to adequately disclose exculpatory evidence from a w
• United States v. Beard
  775 F.2d 1577· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions, identifications were not tainted, and procedural errors, if any, were harmless or not preserved for appeal. The convictions and judgments are affirmed.
• Carrasco v. State
  470 So. 2d 858· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-06-13 ·cited 6×
  Johnny Carrasco was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and robbery following a shooting and carjacking on Interstate 10. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because Officer Dennis's testimony regarding a non-testifying codefendant's confession viola
• Lyle v. Koehler
  720 F.2d 426· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-21 ·cited 6×
  The admission of extra-judicial statements by a co-defendant, which incriminated the petitioner and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Courtney v. State
  358 So. 2d 1107· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-04-25 ·cited 6×
  Phillip Brannon Courtney was convicted by jury of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder, receiving consecutive life sentences plus an additional 15 years. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that allege
• Mathews v. State
  353 So. 2d 1274· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-01-20 ·cited 6×
  Appellant Mathews was convicted of aggravated assault (count 1) and battery (count 2) along with codefendant Baker for beating two white victims in a jail drunk tank. The court reversed the aggravated assault conviction, holding that the trial court violated Bruton rights by admi
• Elliott v. Morford
  557 F.2d 1228· 6th Cir.· 1977-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Judge's reliance on the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) was misplaced because the state trial judge made no factual finding on the voluntariness of the confession.
• United States v. Hendrickson
  542 F.2d 21· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's redacted statement, even if inferentially identifying the appellant, did not violate Bruton principles when other independent evidence identified the appellant.
• United States v. Sanchez
  532 F.2d 155· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to sever Ruiz's trial or provide a limiting instruction after Sanchez admitted to conspiracy prejudiced Ruiz's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
• Erving v. Sigler
  453 F.2d 843· 8th Cir.· 1972-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state trial judge's ruling overruling an objection to a confession did not constitute a reliable determination of voluntariness as required by Jackson v. Denno.
• United States v. Zito
  451 F.2d 361· 9th Cir.· 1971-11-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's motions to suppress evidence, sever his trial, or disclose the informer's identity, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Olivas v. State OF Ariz. ex rel.
  447 F.2d 974· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The admission of out-of-court statements in violation of Bruton v. United States was harmless error because the overwhelming evidence of guilt rendered the improperly admitted testimony non-contributory to the conviction.
• United States v. Simuel
  439 F.2d 687· 4th Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while denying a continuance for a defense witness's live testimony was improper, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Holland
  438 F.2d 887· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of Holland's statements and the airline ticket was proper, and that the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Sullivan
  435 F.2d 650· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-23 ·cited 6×
  A defendant cannot assert error on appeal regarding a joint trial or the admission of a co-defendant's statement when they insisted on the joint trial despite counsel's advice and did not properly object to the statement's admission on appealable grounds.
• United States v. Peterson
  435 F.2d 192· 7th Cir.· 1970-11-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated by an eighteen-month delay, and the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements was permissible because the co-defendant testified at trial.
• United States v. Littman
  421 F.2d 981· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Marino-Desser telephone conversations were made in furtherance of the conspiracy and were admissible.
• Goodwin v. Page
  418 F.2d 867· 10th Cir.· 1969-11-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a consecutive sentence for a subsequent crime runs independently of a prior conviction that is later declared void.
• United States v. Maurice
  416 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1969-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the co-defendant's attorney's opening statement comments, even if potentially prejudicial, did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment rights and were harmless error given the overwhelming evidence.
• United States ex rel. Clifford Hundley v. Mr. Warren Pinto
  413 F.2d 727· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of a co-defendant's statement with limiting instructions, as the co-defendant testified and was available for cross-examination.
• Gray v. United States
  407 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court confession in a joint trial violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as established in Bruton v. United States.
• Roseline Louidor v. State
  162 So. 3d 305· Fla. 3d DCA· 2015-03-25 ·cited 5×
  Roseline Louidor was convicted of manslaughter, aggravated child abuse, and child neglect in the death of a two-year-old. On appeal, she challenged the admission of a videotaped interrogation in which detectives repeatedly told her they knew she was guilty, but the court affirmed
• United States v. DeVILLIO
  983 F.2d 1185· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence or in denying the motion for severance, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements did not violate Bruton.
• United States v. Cifarelli
  589 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the wiretap authorizations were validly issued based on probable cause and adequate showing of other investigative procedures, and that the admission of a codefendant's statement, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Khalif Jones v. State
  739 So. 2d 1220· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-08-05 ·cited 4×
  The Florida appellate court reversed Khalif Jones's convictions for armed robbery, carjacking, and kidnapping because the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after prosecution testimony conveyed the clear inference that a non-testifying codefendant had implicated
• Brown v. State
  648 So. 2d 268· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-01-04 ·cited 4×
  Ruben Brown appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to sever his trial from his codefendant's when the codefendant's hearsay statement was admitted. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the statement admissibl
• United States v. Kelly
  973 F.2d 1145· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance, refusing to produce certain evidence, or admitting hearsay statements of a co-conspirator, and that the Bank Bribery Act was not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
• United States v. Rojas-Martinez
  968 F.2d 415· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that confessions were voluntary, severance was not required, and evidence was sufficient for convictions and sentencing enhancements.
• United States v. Washington
  952 F.2d 1402· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's redacted statement, using neutral pronouns or general terms, does not violate the Confrontation Clause if it does not create an inevitable association with the defendant and a proper limiting instruction is given.
• Vincent v. Al Parke
  942 F.2d 989· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement implicating the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• Morrison v. State
  546 So. 2d 102· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-07-07 ·cited 4×
  Lisa Morrison appealed her convictions for bank robbery after being sentenced to two life sentences and five years. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the d
• United States v. Valdez
  861 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the loss of a portion of the trial transcript does not automatically require reversal; the defendant must demonstrate specific prejudice to their appeal.
• United States v. Dwain Knigge
  832 F.2d 1100· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements and other evidence against the defendant was proper, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Toolate v. Borg
  828 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 4×
  A codefendant's in-court testimony that incriminates the defendant, but which the defendant cannot cross-examine, constitutes a Bruton error, but such error can be harmless if other overwhelming evidence of guilt exists.
• Pillette v. Dale Foltz & Frank Kelley
  824 F.2d 494· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that futility did not excuse this failure.
• Holland v. Scully
  797 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Illinois, constituted a Bruton violation that could not be considered harmless error.
• Shuman v. Wolff
  791 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession in a 1958 murder trial constituted harmless error, and that Nevada's mandatory death penalty statute for a person serving a life sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• United States v. Smith
  792 F.2d 441· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant who procures a witness's absence waives confrontation and hearsay objections to the witness's prior statement, and that the admission of a redacted, interlocking confession, even without a limiting instruction, was permissible.
• United States v. Thuna
  786 F.2d 437· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in redacting a statement, admitting rebuttal evidence, or giving jury instructions that allowed permissive inferences regarding the defendant's knowledge of stolen goods.
• Elroy Hendrix v. Smith
  639 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement that inculpated the appellant, even with a limiting instruction, violated the appellant's confrontation rights and was not harmless error given the weakness of the prosecution's case.