Case Title: People v. Frazier

Citation: 446 Mich. 539, 521 N.W.2d 291

Docket Number: 94507, 94510

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 1994-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Decided August 29, 1994.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief, Research, Training, and Appeals, and Janet A. Napp, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Craig A. Daly for defendant Frazier.
Daniel J. Rust for defendant Phillips.
State Appellate Defender (by Susan M. Meinberg) for defendant McGhee.
Robert M. Morgan for defendant Robinson.
BRICKLEY, J.
This Court is once again presented with the question whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to introduce into evidence at a joint trial the redacted statements of nontestifying codefendants where the jury was instructed that the statements be considered against the declarant only. Applying our ruling in People v Banks, 438 Mich 408; 475 NW2d 769 (1991), we hold that the introduction of the codefendants' statements in this case, preceded by a limited use instruction, did not violate the defendants' right of confrontation guaranteed by the US Const, Am VI and Const 1963, art 1, § 20.
Given the circumstances of this crime, we hold that the admission of the minimally redacted statements was not error. While some of the individual statements introduced may have inferentially *542 incriminated the other defendants where those statements referred to others involved as "friend" or "friends," the jury could have surmised that persons other than those on trial might have been the friend or friends referred to when considered in the context of the evidence. Therefore, the inference was not powerfully incriminating, and the jury in this case could be presumed to have followed the limited use instruction.
I
The four defendants were jointly tried for the shooting death of an off-duty state police trooper during an armed robbery outside a Detroit restaurant near the Detroit River at Hart Plaza. There was testimony at trial that established all four codefendants to be members of a gang known as the "Be Likes." All four defendants made at least one statement to the police. Each defendant admitted some complicity in the robbery, but each denied involvement in the actual shooting. Specifically, each defendant admitted to knowing that fellow gang members were going to commit a robbery and knowing that one fellow gang member had a gun. Each defendant stated that his role was to act as a lookout for police while the robbery occurred. All four defendants were convicted by a jury of second-degree murder. MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549.
Before this Court's decisions in People v Banks, supra, and People v Watkins, 438 Mich 627; 475 NW2d 727 (1991), the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of all four defendants[1] in an unpublished opinion per curiam, issued March 8, *543 1990 (Docket Nos. 102749, 102920, 103553, and 104683). This Court ordered the Court of Appeals to reconsider the appeal in light of Banks and Watkins. 439 Mich 896-897 (1991). On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed defendants' convictions in an unpublished opinion per curiam, issued July 16, 1992 (Docket Nos. 147931-147934). We granted leave to appeal. 442 Mich 929 (1993).
II
A
Defendants' assertion of error requiring reversal is premised on the prosecution's use of the redacted statements of nontestifying codefendants, allegedly in violation of each respective defendant's right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution[2] and under Const 1963, art 1, § 20.[3]
The right of confrontation insures that the witness testifies under oath at trial, is available for cross-examination, and allows the jury to observe the demeanor of the witness. California v Green, 399 US 149, 158; 90 S Ct 1930; 26 L Ed 2d 489 (1970). Recalling the origins of the Confrontation Clause, the Supreme Court noted:
The Court in Green quoted Mattox v United States, 156 US 237, 242-243; 15 S Ct 337; 39 L Ed 409 (1895), for its historical view regarding the primary object of the Confrontation Clause and the role of the literal right to confront. The purpose of a right of a confrontation is to provide for
Addressing the issue of the use of a codefendant's unedited statement at a joint trial, the Supreme Court held in Bruton v United States, 391 US 123, 135-136; 88 S Ct 1620; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968), that it was error to allow the powerfully incriminating unredacted statement made by a nontestifying codefendant. Despite the cautionary instruction given by the judge that the statement should only be considered in evaluating the codefendant's guilt, allowing the jury to hear the facially incriminating statement violated the defendant's right to confront the witness. Id.
The Bruton Court observed that statements made by codefendants are often suspect because *545 the declarant is motivated to shift blame. Id., p 136. In a joint trial, when a jury hears a codefendant's powerfully incriminating statement that expressly names the defendant and describes the defendant's role in the crime, the risk is that the jury will consider the codefendant's statement in assessing the guilt of the defendant despite an instruction telling it not to do so. Id., pp 135-136. While limiting instructions avert the risk of improper consideration of evidence in many situations, in this context, human limitations would render the instructions ineffective.[4]Id.
In a plurality opinion, Parker v Randolph, 442 US 62; 99 S Ct 2132; 60 L Ed 2d 713 (1979), the Court later addressed the admission of a codefendant's facially incriminating statement in a trial in which the defendant had also confessed to essentially the same facts. Four of the justices were of the opinion that there was no violation of the Confrontation Clause in such a situation because the codefendant's statement did not have a devastating effect on the defendant's case. Id., p 75. The plurality reasoned that where the defendant has already confessed, "[his] case has already been devastated...." Id., p 75, n 7.
Subsequently, the Court revisited the issue whether it was proper to allow the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's facially incriminating *546 statement in a trial in which the defendant has also confessed and concluded the defendant's right of confrontation had been violated by the admission. Cruz v New York, 481 US 186, 192-194; 107 S Ct 1714; 95 L Ed 2d 162 (1987). The codefendant's unredacted statement was said to be "interlocking" in that it was similar in material respects. As such, it corroborated and confirmed the defendant's own statement so as to further implicate him.[5]Id., p 192. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted that the corroborative effect of an interlocking codefendant's confession could significantly harm the defendant's case, especially where a defendant seeks to avoid his own confession. The Court held that where the nontestifying codefendant's confession incriminates a defendant, it may not be admitted at their joint trial even if a limited use instruction is given and even if the defendant has confessed. Id., pp 192-193.
The ruling in Bruton has subsequently been limited to situations in which facially incriminating statements made by nontestifying codefendants are used at trial. Richardson v Marsh, 481 US 200; 107 S Ct 1702; 95 L Ed 2d 176 (1987). In holding that there is not a violation of the Confrontation Clause where the name and the role of a defendant has been removed from the codefendant's statement, Justice Scalia wrote that "the calculus changes when confessions that do not name the defendant are at issue." Id., p 211. Despite the redaction in Richardson, the statement contextually *547 incriminated the defendant when linked to other testimony at trial.[6]
The Supreme Court distinguished the codefendant's facially incriminating statement in Bruton, from the redacted statement admitted in Richardson. The Court observed that the codefendant's confession in Bruton had expressly implicated the defendant. The confession it was considering in Richardson was incriminating only because the defendant's testimony made it so:
Absent the defendant's admission that she was in the car at the time the codefendant said he was discussing robbing and killing with a third person, there would not have been any incrimination with regard to her. In this context, the Supreme Court *548 ruled that the jury could be expected to have disregarded the inferential incrimination when it convicted the defendant:
Left unanswered by the Supreme Court is whether the statements of codefendants may be sufficiently redacted when neutral nouns or pronouns are substituted for named defendants. The question is whether leaving the role played by the defendant intact violates the standard set forth in Bruton, supra.[7]
B
This Court has considered partially redacted statements made by nontestifying codefendants to be "powerfully incriminating" where the name of the defendant was blanked out, but the evidentiary context in which the statement was introduced made it easy for the jury to infer the defendant's *549 identity. People v Banks, supra. "[A] jury can draw strong inferences even from a partially redacted confession if the confession is connected with other evidence at trial." Id., p 419. This Court set forth a case-by-case approach rather than a rule of admissibility per se. "[T]he ease with which a jury will be able to fill in a blank will vary from case to case, depending upon the overall evidentiary context in which it is introduced to the jury." Id., p 420. Where there is a "substantial risk" that the jury will consider the nontestifying codefendant's statement in assessing the guilt of the defendant, despite the cautionary instruction and despite the partial redaction, such a statement is inadmissible in that it violates the defendant's federal and state rights to confront the evidence through cross-examination. Id., pp 420-421.
In order to determine whether there is a substantial risk that the jury will consider the nontestifying codefendant's statement when assessing the defendant's guilt, other independent evidence presented at trial necessarily must be considered. In Banks, the two codefendants' statements both asserted that a third person had taken a gun and that that person did not return until after the codefendants heard shots. We ruled that the redaction was transparent. With three people on trial, there was no doubt about the identity of the unnamed person. "The defendant rightfully complains that he might as well have been mentioned by name...." Id., p 423.
The defendant's conviction included first-degree murder. The codefendants were acquitted of all counts. The defendant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine and challenge the codefendants statements of self-exoneration that identified him as the person who fired the gun. We held that the Bruton violation was not harmless because the *550 statements provided a critical element of the prosecutor's case and "[t]here [was] a very real possibility that the improperly admitted statements swayed the jury." Id., p 430.
C
We now turn to the application of the test enunciated in Banks to the specific facts and circumstances of the case before us to determine whether the codefendants' statements were sufficiently redacted. In Banks, we observed that the line between inferential incrimination and direct implication is thin. Id., p 419. Drawing this line requires a careful examination of the specific details disclosed in each codefendant's statement and analysis of whether the statement may have implicated any of the other defendants when the context of all the evidence introduced during the trial is taken into consideration.
The prosecution presented the testimony of several eyewitnesses who were at Hart Plaza that evening. Basically, those witnesses testified that they heard the sound of a gunshot, followed by the scream of a woman. A man was slumped on the sidewalk and bleeding from the head. The witnesses observed several black youths running from the plaza. The description of the clothing worn by those fleeing was generally vague. Some said dark clothes and jeans. Others described Addidas tee shirts, and gym shoes. One of the fleeing youths was thought to have been wearing a baseball cap. One witness described those fleeing as wearing jackets, another said they wore jogging outfits.
The woman who accompanied the victim that evening testified that after they left the restaurant, they were followed by two black males. She described one as wearing a baseball cap. The couple *551 kept walking. The victim put his hand on her back for her to walk a little faster. He switched positions so that she would be walking on the inside. The two assailants overtook them on the right side. One had a gun and asked them for their wallets and money. The victim turned over his wallet. The assailants asked the witness for her wallet. The victim told them she did not have any money with her because she did not bring her purse. The assailants then directed the couple to an area where they were to get face down on the ground. As the couple started in that direction, one of the assailant's asked the victim if he had another wallet. The victim replied that he did. The witness testified that the victim pushed her to the ground, took a step back, and identified himself as "police." The witness covered her head. She did not see the victim draw his weapon. She heard a gunshot and looked up to see the victim on the ground, blood surrounding his head. She remembers someone coming to her aid, and she remembers pointing in the direction that the assailants ran. She testified that she had not been able to identify the assailants at the police lineup, nor could she testify at trial that any of the four defendants were the two assailants she saw that evening.
Nine witnesses who were either gang members or somehow associated with gang members at the time of the crime testified about the activities of the "Be Likes." A primary action of the gang was "getting paid," a euphemism for robbing people of money or valuables. There was testimony that the gang primarily worked the downtown area of Detroit, concentrating on the area in the vicinity of Hart Plaza. There was further testimony that many of the gang members dress in dark Addidas tee shirts, jeans, and gym shoes. Fellow gang *552 members not on trial testified that all four defendants were generally known to be members of the Be Like gang.
Regarding the day in question, gang members not on trial also testified about the presence of somewhere between twenty and fifty gang members downtown in the Hart Plaza area. Various testimony established that the roster of gang members present in the Hart Plaza area on the day in question included: Bop, Al, Shawn, Tyrone, Tina, Mary, Cocoa, Mike, Terrence (Red), Andre, Reuben, Monica, Deno, Darryl, Anthony, Jonathan (Rabbit), Calvin, Lamont, Tim, Larry, Sonya, and the four defendants. There was general testimony that the discussion centered on "getting paid" that night. One gang member, its leader, testified that he and defendant Robinson discussed getting $1,000 together to purchase drugs that could be resold.
Another gang member testified about seeing the four defendants walk toward the boat restaurant. Still another gang member testified that she had seen defendant Phillips with a gun that night. Juxtaposed was testimony that there were other gang members not on trial but present at the plaza who also had guns on the day in question. Several sworn statements previously made by testifying witnesses that implicated various gang members not on trial as the shooter were introduced at trial.
The redactions in this case were minimal. A variation of the term "friend" was substituted for the name whenever the reference was pejorative to someone other than the declarant. Sometimes there was a reference to the number of friends. The codefendant's names were never used, but the names of other gang members were not deleted if the references were benign.
*553 After hearing a cautionary instruction from the judge, the minimally redacted statements were introduced. The jury was advised that names had been redacted, but that the names struck did not necessarily reflect the individuals on trial and the jury was told it should not speculate regarding identities.[8] Contrary to the characterization suggested in the dissenting opinion, the jury was never instructed that "friend" inevitably meant *554 "blank." While the word "friend" may have signaled a redaction, it may also have been the word actually used in the statement, leaving the person referred to unnamed. However, we do acknowledge that telling the jury of the fact of redaction necessarily invokes curiosity and speculation despite a cautionary instruction. For this reason, it may have been preferable for the judge not to have advised the jury of the fact and manner of redaction.
Defendant Robinson's first statement was taken on September 17, 1985. The following excerpts exemplify the presentation and demonstrate the inability of the jury to identify any given codefendant on the basis of the overall nature of the testimony at this trial:
"Q. What did Al tell you?
"Q. Why don't you believe them?
The following statement, taken from defendant McGhee, was introduced at trial in the same minimally redacted form:
"Q. What do you mean when you say getting paid?
"Q. What is hook?
"A. The police.
Defendant Frazier gave a statement to police on December 18, 1986, which was read to the jury, redacted as follows:
Defendant Phillips made one statement to the police. It was similarly redacted and introduced against him:
In a subsequent statement made by defendant Robinson to police on the evening of October 10, 1985, he admitted greater culpability than he originally acknowledged. The minimally redacted statement was read to the jury to be considered *561 against defendant Robinson only. The following exemplifies what was stated:
*562 "A. I don't know full names.
"A. Did we talk about it, yes.
"Q. What was said?
"A. That everybody was gonna get paid.
"Q. Did someone have a gun?
"A. One of my friends.
"Q. Who took the mans wallet?
Defendants have alleged that any reference to friends, especially when the reference is my three friends or the four of us, left the jury with no choice but to substitute the three codefendants for any reference to the word friends. Their position is that the jury was invited to identify one of the defendants whenever the word friend or friends was used.
In reversing the defendant's conviction on remand, the Court of Appeals found the redaction to be insufficient. It expressed the view that by leaving the roles of the other defendants in the nontestifying codefendants' statements, the jury would assume "three friends" in the statement referred to the three other defendants on trial:
We disagree.
Banks calls for case-by-case analysis to determine whether a statement in which the names have been redacted is as powerfully incriminating as a statement in which the names are left intact. In many cases the circumstances of the crime will be such that a redaction substituting the word friend for the named defendant will be insufficient because no imagination will be necessary for the jury's conclusion that the word friend in the codefendant's statement refers to the defendant. However, in this case, the jury could not have easily concluded that out of the array of fellow gang members who were in the immediate vicinity of the crime, the declarant was referring to one of the defendants whenever the word friend was used in the statement.
Witness Labron Moore testified that he was generally regarded to be the leader of the Be Likes at the time this crime took place. He stated that when he left Hart Plaza that night ten to twenty gang members were with defendant James Robinson. Witness Lacoya Huff testified that Antoinette and Al were present. Witness Darryl Mainor indicated that Tony Wright, Jonathan Cox, Terrence Judkins, Calvin Dodo and five others he did not name were in the immediate vicinity of the crime.
It is not disputed that the jury could have inferentially linked one or all of the defendants whenever the word friend or friends was used in a codefendant's statement, but the degree of inference required is sufficiently attenuated that the cautionary instruction can be presumed to have *564 been effective.[9] When the evidentiary context, the manner of redaction, the nature of the statement, *565 and the use of a cautionary instruction are all considered, there was not a substantial risk that the jury utilized the nontestifying codefendants' statements in assessing the guilt of the other defendants.[10]
III
Defendants assert that prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing argument. The defendants' position is that the effect of the prosecutor's closing argument was to undermine the protection afforded by the cautionary instruction given by the judge when the statements were introduced. Defendants characterize the words used by the prosecutor as an invitation for the jury to improperly link all of the defendants' statements.
It is improper for a prosecutor to infer that the jury can use the statement of a nontestifying codefendant to assess the culpability of a defendant. Banks, supra, p 426. In Banks, the prosecutor urged the jury to use the nontestifying codefendants' statements to evaluate the defendant's case. Id., p 424.
Each statement was properly admissible against the declarant, and it was therefore permissible for the prosecutor to comment that each defendant put himself at the crime scene and acknowledged some involvement in the armed robbery. A careful examination of the record in this case has revealed that the prosecutor's closing argument could have been considered an invitation to the jury to use *566 nontestifying codefendants' statements to corroborate the statement made by a defendant. The prosecutor's closing argument included the following remark:
Defense counsel raised an objection to the prosecutor's argument, which he characterized as an invitation to consider the defendants' statements as a whole. The trial judge responded that his view of the prosecutor's comments was not that the jury had been invited to match up each defendant's statement with that of the codefendants. His view was that the prosecutor had invited the jury to compare each defendant's statement with the other evidence introduced in the trial in order to evaluate that statement's credibility vis-a-vis evaluating the guilt of the declarant. The judge did, however, readvise the jury in final instructions that each defendant's case should be determined on the basis of the defendant's acts and statements.
*567 If there was a chance the jury might have been misled by the prosecutor's choice of words, the harm was cured by the final instruction given by the judge. The jury's conviction of second-degree murder supports our conclusion that it was able to heed the limited use instruction.
IV
In conclusion, the minimally redacted statements introduced in this case did not powerfully incriminate any particular defendant. The defendants were not named, and any inference regarding identity that could be drawn was sufficiently attenuated to warrant confidence in the effectiveness of the limited use instruction.
Unlike Banks, there was not a clear attempt on the part of the prosecutor to implicate one defendant as the person who shot the victim. The conviction of any one defendant did not hinge on an inference to be drawn from a nontestifying codefendant's statement. The statements did not supply missing elements or fill in any gaps necessary to convict any defendant. There was no suggestion that there would have been insufficient evidence to support a conviction had each defendant been tried separately. None of the defendants was singled out by the jury to be convicted of the first-degree murder charge brought against each of them. Each defendant in his own statement established the elements necessary for the jury to convict him of second-degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory.[12]
*568 We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals in these cases and affirm the defendants' convictions.
GRIFFIN and MALLETT, JJ., concurred with BRICKLEY, J.
RILEY, J. (concurring).
I completely agree with the majority's analysis under the test of admissibility formulated by a majority in People v Banks, 438 Mich 408; 475 NW2d 769 (1991). I write separately to indicate my continued belief that this Court should adopt the "facially incriminating" test for redacted confessions as provided by a majority of the United States Supreme Court in Richardson v Marsh, 481 US 200, 209; 107 S Ct 1702; 95 L Ed 2d 176 (1987). See Banks, supra at 436-447 (RILEY, J., dissenting). While the majority of this Court in Banks adopted the reasoning of Justice Stevens' dissent in the Richardson case, I noted in my dissenting opinion in Banks that the federal courts have had no problem applying the "facially incriminating" test advocated by the Richardson majority. Banks, supra at 444-445. See also, e.g., United States v Gio, 7 F3d 1279, 1287 (CA 7, 1993).
BOYLE, J., concurred with RILEY, J.
CAVANAGH, C.J.
I respectfully dissent.[1] The record in these cases reveals that a substantial risk *569 exists that the jury considered the codefendants' confessions when deciding each defendant's guilt. Moreover, the error in admitting these confessions was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the mind of an average juror, indeed, would have found the prosecution's case significantly less persuasive had the codefendants' statements been excluded. Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I
As the majority correctly recognizes, the analysis in these cases is governed by People v Banks, 438 Mich 408; 475 NW2d 769 (1991). While reasonable minds may differ on the application of Banks to these facts, they certainly cannot differ on the rule of law established in Banks.
The theoretical underpinning of Banks is the questionable reliability of codefendants' confessions. When one person accuses another of a crime under circumstances in which the declarant stands to gain by inculpating others while at the same time exculpating himself, the accusation is presumptively unreliable and must be subject to cross-examination. Banks at 427-428. However, it seems that the majority today overlooks this presumption of unreliability and the corollary presumption against admissibility of such accusations in the absence of cross-examination.
A
The central issue in these cases is determining the ease with which the jury was able to fill in the "blanks" in the redacted statements, given the entire evidentiary context of the case. In determining this issue, it is incumbent on us to
After conducting its examination of the redacted statements, the majority concludes that the jury could not have filled in "friends" or "my three friends" with the defendants' names. The "jury could have surmised that persons other than those on trial might have been the friend or friends referred to when considered in the context of the evidence" because so many gang members were *571 named at trial. Ante at 542 (emphasis added). I agree that the jury could have believed that the "friends" referred to were persons other than the codefendants. However, given the entire evidentiary context of the trial, there is a substantial risk, bordering on virtual certainty, that the jury did conclude that a reference to "friend" or "my three friends" was a reference to a codefendant.
As the majority correctly notes, no less than twenty gang members, other than the four defendants, were named at trial. All of these were present in downtown Detroit at some point on August 29, 1985. It is important to remember, however, that the significant events of this crime did not occur during a twenty-four-hour period. They occurred within about a five- to ten-minute period sometime between 10:30 and 11:00 P.M. In addition, most of the people mentioned at trial as being present at various times that day were excluded from being present at the critical moment when the victim was fatally shot.
For example, two of the prosecution's primary gang witnesses established that, at most, there were eight to ten gang members present at Hart Plaza at the time of the shooting, and, of these, only the four defendants actively participated in the robbery and shooting. The first of these witnesses was Mary Walker, also known as "Mimi," who gave the following testimony concerning the events that occurred just before the shooting:
[Mary Walker]: Lacoya, Shawn and Omar, Neeta.
A. Yes.
*572 Q. Omar Frazier?
A. Frazier.
Q. And Darnita?
A. Yes.
Q. And who else?
A. James and Chris.
Q. You mean Chris Phillips?
A. Yes.
Q. And James Robinson?
A. Yes.
Q. Was anyone talking?
A. Yes.
Q. And who was talking?
A. James.
Q. James was talking. What was he talking about?
A. Getting paid.
Q. Getting paid?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he [James] say something after that?
A. He asked was anybody going with him.
A. They left.
Q. Who left?
A. Chris, Omar and Darnita and James.
A. Yes.
Q. How was he dressed?
A. A white jogging suit.
Q. Was he carrying anything?
A. Yes.
Q. What was he carrying[?]
[A.] A Gouchi [sic] bag.
Q. A Gouchi bag. Was anything in the Gouchi bag?
A. I don't know.
A. Sitting on the spiral [staircase].
Q. And who was with you there?
A. Shawn and Cocoa.
Q. Was anyone else with you?
A. What happened?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you hear?
A. Just a little pop.
Q. After the pop did you see anyone?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you se[e]?
A. James and Chris.
Q. And what were they doing?
A. Running back towards where we were sitting.
Q. All right. Did they say anything?
A. They said let's go.
Q. And what did you do?
A. We ran back towards the bus station, bus stop.
*574 Q. Who else did you see get on the bus?
A. Shawn, James and Chris.
The prosecution then called Antoinette Simmons, also known as "Shawn."
[Antoinette Simmons]: Yes.
Q. Who had a gun?
A. James had a gun in the Gouchi bag.
Q. In a Gouchi bag?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see that gun?
A. Earlier that day, yes.
Q. Where did you go after you left there?
A. We started heading towards Hart Plaza.
Q. Was anyone else with you at this time?
A. No.
Q. Was James Robinson still with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Omar Frazier[?]
[A.] Yes.
Q. Was Chris Phillips still with you?
A. Yes.
Q. And Darnita McGhee?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Cocoa still with you?
A. Yes she was.
Q. And was Mimi still with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was Mimi, what is her name?
A. Mary Walker.
Q. Did you go into Hart Plaza?
A. Yes we did.
Q. All right. What did they do then?
Q. What happened in that fight?
A. He slapped me and told I couldn't go.
Q. You asked ... to go with h[i]m?
A. Yes I did.
A. James, Chris, Omar and Darnita.
Q. Who had the gun?
A. James still had it in the case.
A. I seen the case.
Q. James had the case?
A. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Walking ahead where?
Q. You saw them walking that way?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what is the next thing you saw?
A. They was coming up in here.
Q. Who was coming up in there?
A. They was up in this area.
Q. Were they on the sidewalk?
Q. Omar and Darnita were?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you see next?
Q. What happen[e]d after you heard the shots?
*577 Q. All four of them started running?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you mean switched clothes?
Q. To whose sisters house?
A. James sister.
Q. Did you go there directly?
A. Yes we did.
The testimony of both Simmons and Walker was impeached by various inconsistent statements they had previously made. Nevertheless, the substance of their testimony was confirmed by the redacted statements of the defendants themselves. Defendant McGhee noted in her statement to the police:
Defendant Frazier's statement contained the following comments:
Similarly, in one of the statements that defendant Robinson made to the police he commented as follows:
Another prosecution witness, Labron Moore, also known as "Bop," testified that a large group of Be Like, perhaps as many as fifty, were downtown on the night in question. His testimony confirms, *579 however, that before the murder the large group split into two or three smaller groups.
Thus, out of the twenty-odd gang members named at trial, at least three of the defendants, Walker, Simmons and Moore[2] all agree that the group that actually was present at Hart Plaza that night consisted of considerably less than twenty people and probably consisted of no more than eight. Of those eight, Walker and Simmons named only the four defendants as participating in the crime.[3]
There is no doubt that these four defendants had many "friends," several of whom were specifically named at trial. It is also true, with almost a million people living in Detroit, a reference to a "friend" theoretically could be anyone. However, in light of all the evidence and the testimony of Simmons, Walker, and the defendants themselves, it is obvious that the "three friends" the defendants spoke of in their confessions were the very same "friends" sitting alongside them at the defense table.
Also facilitating the ease with which the jury could fill in the blanks is the fact that when a defendant identified a nondefendant admittedly at Hart Plaza (i.e., Simmons, Walker, Cocoa, or Tony), that name was left in. Thus, out of a possible eight, a studious juror could easily exclude the other named individuals, thereby leaving an ever-decreasing number of candidates for the appellation "friend" or "my three friends." Moreover, before allowing the first redacted statement into evidence, the trial court issued the following instructions:
The logical conclusion to the trial court's instruction is that although the names struck do not necessarily refer to the defendants, they may. By giving this instruction, the trial court virtually assured that the jurors would make the very connection that it was urging them not to make. This instruction must have inevitably aroused the jurors' curiosity, curiosity that could only be satisfied by filling in the blanks created by the redactions. As I said in my concurrence in Banks:
B
If the situation for defendants Frazier, Phillips and McGhee was bad, defendant Robinson did not even enjoy a sporting chance that the jury would fail to make the connection the court urged it to avoid. Several nondefendant witnesses identified defendant Robinson as having a Gucci bag. All the codefendants' statements referred to one of their "friends" as having a Gucci bag. Shawn Simmons also recounted in her testimony that she and Robinson had an argument and that Robinson slapped her. In defendant McGhee's redacted statement she says that "`[o]ne of my friends got real mad and slapped Shawn....'" Ante at 556.
To make matters worse, Robinson's sister, Wanda Mainor, was impeached by a statement she made to the police. In that statement she said that Robinson lived with her in August of 1985 and that he came home late on the night of the murder and was very upset. Simmons testified that after the shooting, she, Robinson, and Phillips got on a bus and went to Robinson's sister's house. Phillips also testified: "`my friend got off [the bus] and caught the Livernois bus to his sisters house.'" Ante at 560.
Furthermore, Simmons testified that Robinson changed coats with Tony Quarles and that Robinson was wearing a white coat. McGhee's statement recounts that "`Tony gave my friend his blue Georgetown coat and my friend gave Tony his white Georgetown coat.'" Ante at 557.
It takes a leap of faith to believe that the jury did not actually know, let alone that a substantial *582 risk existed, that the "friend" with the sister, the one who carried the Gucci bag, the one who slapped Simmons and changed coats with Tony Quarles, was not James Robinson. And with one piece of the puzzle complete, it is simply a matter to determine who the other "friends" were. Once James Robinson is identified as a "friend," that only leaves two other "friends" to be identified other than the maker of each particular statement.[4]
Having identified one "friend," I think that the risk is very substantial that the jury considered all the codefendants' statements when deciding each defendant's guilt.
C
If at the close of the proofs there were any lingering doubts on the part of the jury regarding who the "friends" were in the redacted confessions, they were surely dispelled by the prosecutor's closing arguments. In those closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly urged the jury to consider all the evidence, testimony, and redacted confessions as a whole.
The prosecutor, by vigorously constructing his case from the evidence established at trial, urged the jury to consider all the confessions as a whole. This is exactly the concern I voiced in my concurring opinion in Banks.
*584 I believe this case confirms that concern.
D
I conclude that a substantial risk exists that the jury considered the codefendants' confessions when deciding each respective defendant's guilt contrary to Banks. In my opinion, it could not have been any easier for the jury to correctly fill in the blanks with the names of the codefendants, given all the evidence adduced at trial. The record in this case makes it clear that the jury could have easily concluded that the word friend in a codefendant's statement referred to another defendant, because the degree of inference was not sufficiently attenuated.
II
Having concluded that there is a substantial risk that the jury considered the codefendants' out-of-court statements in deciding each defendant's guilt, Banks requires an inquiry into whether that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. An "error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" only when the properly admitted evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant's admission is insignificant. Id. at 427. When making this determination, it is proper to consider whether the "average juror" would have found the prosecution's case significantly less persuasive had the confessions been excluded. Id. at 430.[5]
*585 I find it difficult to conclude that the error was harmless because the other evidence admitted against these defendants was not "overwhelming," nor was the prejudicial effect of the confession "insignificant." Most witnesses of the shooting reported seeing two or three black males fleeing Hart Plaza; no one got a good look at those fleeing. The victim's companion testified that she and the victim were accosted by two black males, but that she could not positively identify any of the defendants as the two.
Simmons and Walker did positively identify the four defendants as the perpetrators. However, their testimony was so severely impeached that, in absence of defendants' corroborating confessions, their testimony would have been virtually unbelievable. Thus, there were no credible eyewitness identifications of the perpetrators.
Furthermore, even though each statement was admissible against its maker, it must be remembered that no defendant admitted being the actual shooter. All that the defendants actually admitted was either that they were lookouts or that they just happened to be present at the time of the murder. The evidence of each individual's guilt or the extent thereof was not, therefore, overwhelming when judged solely by their confessions. It becomes overwhelming only when all four statements are considered as a whole. When the statements are so considered, as the prosecutor urged during closing arguments, it is obvious that the four acted as a group and that one of the them actually shot Trooper Hutchins. Thus, all could be found guilty under the law of aiding and abetting regardless of who actually pulled the trigger.
*586 It is clear that without the confessions, the prosecution's case would have been "significantly less persuasive" in the mind of the average juror because the confessions were the primary evidence directly linking these defendants to this crime.[6] Therefore, I cannot conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
III
After reviewing the entire record in these cases, I conclude that a substantial risk exists that the jury considered the codefendants' confessions when deciding each defendant's guilt. I also conclude that the error in admitting the confessions was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the mind of an average juror, indeed, would have found the prosecution's case significantly less persuasive had the codefendants' statements been excluded. Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
LEVIN, J., concurred with CAVANAGH, C.J.
[1]  We note at the outset that the statements were not used as substantive evidence against the codefendants, and the prosecutor has not contended that such use should have been permitted. In that regard People v Watkins is not applicable.
[2]  US Const, Am VI provides in pertinent part:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The Fourteenth Amendment makes this Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to confrontation applicable to the States. Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400, 403; 85 S Ct 1065; 13 L Ed 2d 923 (1965).
[3]  Const 1963, art 1, § 20 provides in part:

In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him....
[4]  Justifying this exception to the general rule that juries are presumed to follow limiting instructions, the Supreme Court stated:

[T]here are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial. [Bruton, supra, pp 135-136. Citations omitted.]
[5]  The prosecutor in the case presently considered by this Court has asserted that there is no Bruton error because each defendant has confessed independently of enough to support the conviction of second-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory. As noted by Justice Scalia, the fact of the defendant's own confession does not cure Bruton error; however, an independent confession might be relevant in assessing whether the error is nonetheless harmless. Cruz, supra, pp 193-194.
[6]  Specifically, the codefendant's statement in Richardson related a conversation between himself and a third person that allegedly took place in a car en route to the scene of the crime. The codefendant related that there was talk about having to kill the victims after the robbery. When the defendant testified, she admitted she was in the back seat of the car and she knew that the codefendant was involved in a conversation, but she could not hear what was being said.

To establish the defendant's knowledge of the criminal plan, the prosecutor suggested to the jury in closing argument that the defendant heard the conversation.
After the defendant unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the verdict in Michigan courts, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 17, 1980 (Docket No. 46128), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal district court's denial of the defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Civ Action No 83-CV-2665-DT (ED Mich, October 11, 1984). 781 F2d 1201, 1212 (CA 6, 1986).
[7]  The Supreme Court did not express an opinion regarding whether a nontestifying codefendant's confession in which only the name of the defendant had been redacted would be admissible. Richardson, supra, p 211, n 5.
[8]  During his testimony the police officer who interviewed defendant Robinson was asked by the prosecutor if he had a copy of Robinson's statement with him that had been marked in some way to delete some names. After the witness responded yes, the trial judge gave the following instruction:

The Court: What I have done ladies and gentlemen, if you think back when we first started this trial, I indicated to you, obvious to you that you could observe there are four individuals on trial here and that each individual deserves your respective judgement as to the proofs or lack of proofs.
In other words each person is entitled to your separate consideration. Along with that we utilize and this goes along with any statement that the people may make, the first rule of the juror is to determine whether or not they made the statement and if in fact in point of fact they made it, only so much as you believe was made can be used against them. That's kind of logical.
What I have ordered the prosecutor to do is to use a fancy lawyers phrase, redact, strike, scratch out. This is going to be done all afternoon.
Any statement other than [what] is applicable to that individual, if they make any reference to any other names, I said strike it out. I don't want you to guess or speculate, don't consider or worry about it. This is utilized and designed to have you focus first of all whether or not they made the statement and also secondly only as it applies to that individual, if you believe they made the statement and how much of it they made.
You are going to hear a phrase called my friend. There is [sic] a lot of different names. Don't worry or speculate or my friends, plural if there are more than one person. Okay, all right.
[Prosecutor]: Thank you your Honor.
The Court: Understand I meant to say this too, the names struck do not necessarily even reflect the individuals on trial here; but I'm doing this so that you can better focus on it.
[9]  The dissenting opinion points out the danger that defendant Robinson was linked to the statements made by codefendants because of references to one friend having a Gucci bag, slapping Shawn Simmons, and taking the Livernois bus to his sister's house.

There was testimony from Labron Moore, the supposed leader of the Be Like gang that a couple of gang members carried designer bags. Witness Andre Quarles testified that Tony and Edward also carried guns. Witness Debbie Scruggs testified that defendant Robinson had a Louis Batton pouch that night (not a Gucci bag). Codefendant Phillips asserted in his own statement that he was holding his friend's Gucci bag that night, and defendant Robinson said in his statement that one friend put the gun back into the other friend's bag before the group got onto the bus. Witness Antoinette Simmons testified that defendant Robinson carried a Gucci bag that evening, but, as the dissent later notes, her testimony was so severely impeached, it was virtually unbelievable. Given the contradictory evidence, any link between the reference to the Gucci bag in the statement to defendant Robinson was sufficiently attenuated. The jury could not easily substitute Robinson for "friend," and therefore the cautionary instruction can be considered to have been effective.
The statement in the dissenting opinion that the jury could have guessed that the friend that took the Livernois bus to his sister's house was defendant Robinson is not the equivalent of establishing that the risk is too high that it would be easy for the jury to draw that conclusion. Even if there is some link to some aspect of a statement, there is not necessarily a link to the criminal activity in every case. The prosecutor, who is asking to use the redacted statement in a joint trial in which the codefendant's right to cross-examine the evidence may be violated when the defendant exercises his right not to testify, is in the best position to know the entire evidentiary picture and suggest a redaction sufficient to protect the codefendant. An edit that allows the jury to easily fill in the blanks will carry with it the risk of being so judged on appeal.
Here, not all the gang members who were downtown and who fled were involved in the robbery and shooting. Defendant Robinson's sister testified her home was on Willett. Given the number of the members downtown who fled after the shooting, it would not have been easy for the jury to conclude the friend taking the Livernois bus was defendant Robinson. More than one gang member lived in that area of Detroit, and it is likely that more than one could have lived with a sister.
Finally, whether or not defendant Robinson slapped his then girlfriend Antoinette Simmons earlier in the evening was not a fact central to establishing defendant Robinson's guilt in the armed robbery and murder of the state trooper. Defendant McGhee's statement tells the chronological story of the events of the evening. Beyond repeating the word friend, defendant McGhee does not state any further reference to the "friend who slapped Shawn," which would have impermissibly incriminated defendant Robinson in the crime.
[10]  The dissent maintains that it was obvious any reference to "friend" in the redacted statements meant one or all of the codefendants. Interestingly, this trial represents a situation in which the statements become less incriminating when the evidentiary context is considered. Our review of the entire record suggests that only gifted jurors armed with graph paper, a computer, and instructions regarding which testimony to consider credible and which to disregard would be able to draw the conclusion that friend meant codefendant.
[11]  Similarly, the following argument made by the prosecutor was also cited by the defendants as illustrating the prosecutor's invitation to the jury to use codefendants' statements to evaluate the guilt of the other defendants:

But probably the best evidence of the truth of any part of Shawn Simmons statement is the testimony of other defendants and other witnesses. The defendants corroborate the same things that Shawn puts in her statement and puts in her testimony.
Shawn was one of the fellow gang members not on trial who testified as a witness for the prosecution. This is not necessarily a specific directive to compare codefendants' statements with one another. Each defendant's statement did include references that arguably corroborated the testimony of the witness.
[12]  Even if we were to accept the position of the dissenting opinion, that it was error for the redacted statements to have been allowed, the harmless error analysis employed in that opinion appears to ignore each defendant's admission that is admissible against that defendant.

Having resolved this case on the inquiry into whether the redacted statement was powerfully incriminating, we leave for another day the interplay between the magnitude of incrimination and harmless error, including the role of a defendant's own confession in the harmless error analysis.
[1]  I have previously voiced my dissatisfaction with name-only redactions and the importance of the Confrontation Clause. See People v Banks, 438 Mich 408; 475 NW2d 769 (1991) (CAVANAGH, C.J., concurring), and People v Watkins, 438 Mich 627; 475 NW2d 727 (1991) (lead opinion by CAVANAGH, C.J.). Although I still believe in the correctness of those opinions, I see no need to reiterate those positions here.
[2]  To the extent that Moore testified that the large group divided into smaller groups.
[3]  Coincidentally, defendant McGhee's statement places both Simmons and Walker at Hart Plaza, and defendant Robinson's statement places Simmons there.
[4]  Excluding Robinson's own statement.
[5]  See also Schneble v Florida, 405 US 427, 430; 92 S Ct 1056; 31 L Ed 2d 340 (1972):

In some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant's admission is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the admission was harmless error.
[6]  I also note that all the statements, as evidentiary exhibits, were taken into the jury room during deliberations.