Bruton 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 text of one citing opinion could not be retrieved, so that treatment remains unread.
8,791 later cases cite Bruton v. United States; 413 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 412 of them have been read, and the text of 1 citing opinion could not be retrieved, so it remains unread. 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 Bruton 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
Limited
-
The court held that admitting mutually incriminating codefendant confessions was a technical Bruton violation but did not require reversal where each defendant's own substantially identical confession made the error harmless.
State v. Hopper · Supreme Court of Louisiana · filed
Under the circumstances presented herein, we hold that the ruling in Bruton v. United States does not require that defendants’ convictions be reversed and a new trial granted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that a Bruton violation may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the independent evidence is overwhelming and the codefendants' confessions are cumulative.
Harrington v. California · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
But apart from them the case against Harrington was so overwhelming that we conclude that this violation of Bruton was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, unless we adopt the minority view in Chapman (386 U. S., at 42-45) that a departure from constitutional procedures should result in an automatic reversal, regardless of the weight of the evidence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Bruton to statements admissible under the coconspirator hearsay exception and upheld California's procedure for admitting such statements after prima facie proof of conspiracy.
People v. Brawley · Supreme Court of California · filed
And even if it be assumed in the light of cases such as Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123, that a jury may be incapable of following limiting instructions regarding an asserted coconspirator’s statements, the California procedure (whereby upon prima facie proof of a conspiracy the trial court may admit evidence of an asserted coconspirator’s statements during the conspiracy and in furtherance thereof but the jury may not consider the statements against another asserted conspirator unless the jury first makes certain findings) does not require our holding that the receipt of such statements violates the right of confrontation of another asserted conspirator.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Bruton to prior inconsistent statements admitted solely to impeach a witness and affirmed the denial of relief.
Bolton v. Nelson · Ninth Circuit · filed
It is true that as a practical matter the difference between impeaching and substantive evidence may be of little moment to a jury, and that cases like Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) suggest that the policies behind the confrontation clause may one day sweep away such formal distinctions. However this may be, the Supreme Court has not yet abrogated the traditional rule permitting the use of prior inconsistent statements for the purpose of impeachment, and it is not for us to do so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that admission of mutually inculpatory codefendant confessions was Bruton error but harmless where both defendants had confessed, both testified, and other evidence established guilt.
Carey v. State · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
We do know, however, that a Bruton error can, under some circumstances, be harmless constitutional error. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284. The rule in Bruton is thus not absolute.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that a codefendant confession repeating the same material facts as the defendant's voluntary confession was merely cumulative and its admission harmless rather than grounds for reversal under Bruton.
State v. Stubbs · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
It is clear that the rationale of Bruton is simply that when oral evidence, even if reduced to writing, is introduced which may be considered by the jury as evidence against a defendant, the opportunity for cross-examination should be given else the evidence is tainted. However, where the defendant himself has freely and voluntarily given the same evidence in a confession or testimony, establishing the same material facts, evidence given as to the same facts in a co-defendant's confession is merely cumulative, and therefore not grounds for reversal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that any Bruton error was harmless where the defendant's own properly admitted confession corroborated the codefendant's confession.
State v. Oliver · Supreme Court of Connecticut · filed
Any Bruton error is harmless where the defendant himself has confessed and that confession, admitted into evidence, corroborates the confession of the codefendant.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that, even assuming Bruton applied, the admission was harmless in the full context of the case.
Walker v. State · S.D. Florida · filed
Moreover, even assuming Bruton applies to these facts it is clear that Bruton error may, when examined in the total context of the case, be harmless.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that any Bruton error was harmless because the challenged statements were cumulative of independent evidence placing the defendant at the crime.
Brown v. State · Florida Third District Court of Appeal · filed
As an additional ground for our decision, we hold, in accordance with Roberts v. Russell, supra, that the Bruton doctrine may be raised retroactively and that, in defending against a Bruton attack, the State may urge exception to the Bruton doctrine as laid out in Harrington v. California, supra. Measuring the trial record against these principles, we find no harmful error in the original conviction of the appellant because the tainted statements were merely cumulative to other evidence which placed the appellant at the scene of the crime and as one of the perpetrators.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court again held Bruton errors harmless where the challenged testimony was cumulative of overwhelming independent evidence and rejected automatic reversal.
Brown v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Upon an independent examination of the record, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the Bruton errors were harmless.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
On rehearing, the court held that the admitted codefendant confession violated Bruton but was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and it receded from its earlier reversal.
Horton v. State · Florida Second District Court of Appeal · filed
On rehearing the State suggests that we overlooked the full import of Harrington v. California [1] which held that notwithstanding a violation of the mandate of Bruton v. United States [2] such violation does not constitute reversible error in all such cases. The point is well taken.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that a clear Bruton violation did not require relief because the codefendants' confessions were harmless in light of the petitioner's own confession.
Matthews v. Bounds · E.D. North Carolina · filed
It clearly appears that the rules established in Bruton were violated in petitioner’s trial. However, this court is of the opinion that, upon the facts, this case is governed by the more recent Supreme Court decisions of Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969), Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972), and particularly Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). ... This court finds that, in view of the overwhelming evidence of petitioner’s guilt properly admitted at his trial, “the ‘minds of an average jury’ would not have found the State’s case significantly less persuasive” against the petitioner had the testimony as to the confessions of his codefendants been excluded, and that, therefore, any error committed thereby, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that no Bruton violation occurred where the statements were redacted and every defendant confessed, and alternatively that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gwin v. State · Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
We do not find a Bru-ton violation, in the total context of this case; but even if we did, the error would obviously be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that admitting Hill's confession was Bruton error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of Jefferson's confession and other evidence.
Jefferson v. State · Indiana Court of Appeals · filed
The next allegation of error relates to the admission of co-defendant Eddie Leon Hill’s confession which implicated appellant. Appellant cites the U. S. Supreme Court decision of Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 where the court held that at a joint trial, the introduction into evidence of a non-testifying defendant’s confession which is inculpatory of a co-defendant violates the latter’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. ... In light of appellant’s own complete confession and the above testimony from witnesses indicating his guilt of the admitted crime, we are convinced that introducing co-defendant Hill’s confession into evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court declined to extend Bruton to a confession redacted to eliminate the defendant's name and existence that becomes incriminating only when linked with later evidence.
Richardson v. Marsh · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
While we continue to apply Bruton where we have found that its rationale validly applies, see Cruz v. New York, ante, p. 186, we decline to extend it further. We hold that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession with a proper limiting instruction when, as here, the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that any Bruton error was harmless because overwhelming independent evidence established the petitioner's guilt.
Robinson v. Rose · Sixth Circuit (unpublished) · filed
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, relying upon the Supreme Court's opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), concluded that there had been a violation of petitioner's sixth amendment right to confrontation since, in spite of the redaction, other evidence at the trial 'pointed so unerringly to the defendants that it was an impossibility for any juror to mistake the fact that the blanks in the redacted confessions referred only to them, and no one else.' ... We agree with the district court's conclusion that any error in admitting the confessions was rendered harmless by overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that any assumed Bruton violation was harmless in light of the remaining evidence supporting the convictions.
Diggs v. Pliler · Ninth Circuit (unpublished) · filed
Even if there were a Bruton violation any error was harmless in light of the remaining evidence supporting the convictions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Bruton does not apply to nontestimonial statements after Crawford.
State v. Newsome · Ohio Third District Court of Appeals · filed
Because it is premised on the Confrontation Clause, the Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause, does not apply to nontestimonial statements.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Bruton inapplicable to a nontestimonial threat by a codefendant to a family member because Bruton is premised on the Confrontation Clause.
People v. Lagunas · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two · filed
It is undisputed Denetric was an unavailable witness and his statements to Nancy during the telephone conversation were not testimonial under Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at pages 51-52, 68. ... Therefore the Bruton rule does not apply here because it is premised on the Confrontation Clause.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Bruton inapplicable to nontestimonial statements after Crawford.
People v. Bocanegra · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two · filed
Because it is premised on the Confrontation Clause, the Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause itself, does not apply to nontestimonial statements.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held nontestimonial codefendant statements outside post-Crawford confrontation protection and alternatively harmless.
People v. Lara · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three · filed
Although Crawford mentioned Bruton (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 57), it never expressly overruled or acknowledged that its decision in any way replaced Bruton. Nevertheless, dictum in Crawford strongly suggested the Confrontation Clause no longer applied to nontestimonial statements. ... James had been advised his jail telephone conversations may be recorded, but the mere fact the jail at times records inmate telephone calls in no way transmutes James’s casual remarks to his mother and an acquaintance during two such calls into testimonial hearsay statements. ... As noted in Arceo, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 571-572, “[T]he confrontation clause has no application to out-of-court nontestimonial statements [citations], including statements by codefendants. [Citations.]”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held the nontestimonial jailhouse statements outside Bruton after Crawford.
People v. Firman · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One · filed
Crawford altered the Aranda/Bruton Sixth Amendment analysis by implying that the Sixth Amendment does not bar the admission of nontestimonial hearsay.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Bruton inapplicable to nontestimonial statements after Crawford.
State v. Wilcoxon · Supreme Court of Washington · filed
We join these courts and hold that when an out-of-court statement made by a nontestifying codefendant is nontestimonial, Bruton is inapplicable because such statements are outside the scope of the confrontation clause.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Bruton inapplicable to nontestimonial statements after Crawford.
People v. Delamora · California Court of Appeal, Third District · filed
Because Bruton is premised on the Confrontation Clause, the Bruton rule also does not apply to nontestimonial statements.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Bruton inapplicable to nontestimonial statements after Crawford.
People v. Vang · California Court of Appeal, Third District · filed
Defendant asserts the Aranda/Bruton rule survived Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36 unscathed, admission of Ronnie‟s statements to Tom and Vue “powerfully incriminated” defendant, and therefore, the trial court violated his right of confrontation by allowing the statements into evidence regardless of whether the statements were testimonial in nature. Not so. ... Ronnie‟s statements to Tom and Vue were casual remarks and did not offer testimony against defendant in any sense recognized by Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36 and its progeny. Defendant does not argue otherwise. Indeed, defendant‟s trial counsel conceded at trial the statements were non-testimonial in nature. Because “the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements,” as long as these statements were admissible under state law evidentiary rules, there was no error in the admission of the statements. ... We agree with the Arceo court‟s reasoning, and that of the foregoing federal decisions, and are not persuaded by defendant‟s arguments to the contrary.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Crawford limited Bruton to testimonial statements.
State v. Nieves · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · filed
We conclude that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and its progeny limited the application of the Bruton doctrine to instances in which a codefendant's statements are testimonial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Bruton cannot extend beyond the Confrontation Clause and rejected a due-process workaround for nontestimonial confessions.
People v. Washington · California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two · filed
This argument is not without persuasive force, but ultimately lacks merit because the Aranda / Bruton doctrine is grounded exclusively in the confrontation clause and can extend no farther than the metes and bounds of the clause defined by the United States Supreme Court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Bruton now extends confrontation protection only to testimonial codefendant statements.
Fisher v. Commonwealth · Supreme Court of Kentucky · filed
So if a co-defendant’s out-of-court statement is not testimonial, Crawford, Bruton, or Richardson, do not bar potentially admissible statements.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court further confined Bruton by holding that a confession using a neutral reference to another person falls outside its narrow exception when the redaction does not directly identify the defendant.
Samia v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Accordingly, it “fall[s] outside the narrow exception [Bruton] created.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bruton 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