Opper v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Fifth Circuit described Bruton as overruling Opper as to severance in Hanley v. United States (1969). Opper's separate rule requiring corroboration of an accused's postoffense admissions continues to be applied. The confirmed treatment is listed below.
29 later cases cite Opper v. United States; 29 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Opper v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The Supreme Court held that jury instructions cannot protect a defendant when a nontestifying codefendant's incriminating confession is admitted at their joint trial, displacing Opper's reliance on those instructions in that setting.
Bruton v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Despite the con-cededly clear instructions to the jury to disregard Evans’ inadmissible hearsay evidence inculpating petitioner, in the context of a joint trial we cannot accept limiting instructions as an adequate substitute for petitioner’s constitutional right of cross-examination. The effect is the same as if there had been no instruction at all.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Opper v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace