Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 96, 98 (2) (561 SE2d 382) (2002). 12 Id. (punctuation omitted). 13 Id. (citation and punctuation omitted); see Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 207 (II) (107 SC 1702, 95 LE2d 176) (1987); Bruton, 391 U. S. at 135-36. 14 Moss, 275 Ga. at 98 (2); see Bruton, 391 U. S. at 135-36. 15 481 U. S. 200 (107 SC 1702, 95 LE2d 176) (1987). 16 Moss, 275 Ga. at 98 (2) (punctuation omitted); see Richardson, 481 U. S. at 208. 17 Moss, 275 Ga. at 98 (2); see Thomas v. State, 268 Ga. 135, 137-38 (6) (485 SE2d 783) (1997) (“For the admission of a co-defendant’s statements to constitute a Bruton violation the statements standing alone must clearly inculpate the defendant.” (punctuation omitted)); Garlington v. State, 268 Ga. App. 264, 267-68 (1) (a) (601 SE2d 793) (2004). 18 See Moss, 275 Ga. at 99 (2) (<HOLDING>); Thomas, 268 Ga. at 137-38 (6) (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights (B) holding that admission of nontestifying oodefendants statement to police that murder defendant came to his apartment and went in bathroom and stayed there for awhile did not violate bruton rule because statement standing alone did not clearly incriminate defendant but only became incriminating when linked with other evidence (C) recognizing the chance that the jury will credit a nontestifying codefendants incriminating statement and conclude that the statement pointed to the objecting defendant as the offender even though he could not crossexamine the declarant (D) holding that two or three references to everyone and they in testimony about confession did not violate bruton because testimony did not implicate the defendant expressly nor was it incriminating on its face (E) holding that the introduction of a jointly tried nontestifying codefendants statement violates the sixth amendment confrontation clause if the statement contains incriminating evidence concerning a defendant
Output (English): recognizing the chance that the jury will credit a nontestifying codefendants incriminating statement and conclude that the statement pointed to the objecting defendant as the offender even though he could not crossexamine the declarant