Document: 481 U.S. 200 107 S.Ct. 1702 95 L.Ed.2d 176 Gloria RICHARDSON, Warden, Petitionerv.Clarissa MARSH. No. 85-1433. Argued Jan. 14, 1987. Decided April 21, Syllabus Respondent and Benjamin Williams were charged with murder, robbery, assault. At their joint trial, Williams' confession was admitted over respondent's objection. The had been redacted to omit all reference respondent—indeed, indication that anyone other than a third accomplice participated in the crime. In his confession, described conversation he as they drove victims' home, during which said would have kill victims after robbing them. time admitted, jury admonished not use it any way against respondent. did testify. Respondent's testimony indicated she car but heard conversation. insisted intended rob or anyone. convicted of felony murder assault commit Michigan Court Appeals affirmed. Federal District denied petition for writ habeas corpus, reversed, holding respondent entitled new trial under Bruton v. United States, 391 123, 88 1620, 20 476. held defendant is deprived rights Confrontation Clause when nontestifying codefendant's naming him participant crime introduced at even if instructed consider only codefendant. requires same result defendant, nonetheless linked by evidence properly trial. Held: violated admission proper limiting instruction when, here, eliminate defendant's name, her existence. recognized very narrow exception almost invariable assumption law jurors follow instructions situation facially incriminating codefendant situation, explained, risk will its so great consequences failure vital be assumed incapable obeying instructions. There are two important distinctions between this case Bruton, cause fall outside created. First, expressly implicated accomplice, whereas here on face, became later Where necessity such linkage involved, there does exist overwhelming probability jurors' inability disregard inferences foundation Bruton. Second, requiring differs from face practical effects application produce. If limited confessions, can complied redaction. extended confessions connection, possible, possible predict admissibility advance Compliance Appeals' overbroad reading could achieved without enormous costs criminal justice system. Pp. 206-211. 781 F.2d 1201 (CA 6 1986), reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 211. Timothy A. Baughman, Detroit, Mich., petitioner. Lawrence S. Robbins, New York City, amicus curiae, special leave Court. R. Steven Whalen, Justice SCALIA 1 476 (1968), we Today whether 2 * Clarissa Marsh, Williams, Kareem Martin assaulting Cynthia Knighton murdering 4-year-old son, Koran, aunt, Ollie Scott. tried jointly, (Martin fugitive trial.) testified follows: On evening October 29, 1978, son Scott's home boyfriend visited. After brief living room, announced come "pick up something" Scott rose couch. then pulled out gun, pointed Knightons, "someone gotten killed [Scott] knew something about it." immediately walked front door peered peephole. doorbell rang, opened door, in, carrying gun. As passed respondent, asked, "Where's money?" forced upstairs, went into kitchen, leaving alone Knightons. attempted flee, grabbed until returned. ordered Knightons lie floor upstairs assist Martin. Respondent, again left stood occasionally A few minutes later, Martin, came down stairs, handed paper grocery bag basement, where shot Only survived. 3 addition Knighton's testimony, State (over objection) given police shortly arrest. crime.1 largely corroborated account activities persons house. addition, which, according robbery. 4 rested, took stand. She lost money buy drugs. upset, suggested borrow Scott, whom worked past. picked During drive, who sitting backseat, "knew [Martin Williams] talking" hear because "the radio speaker right [her] ear." short asked loan. see was. When saw him. robbery feel free too scared flee. know why prevented escaping. taking house bag. possessed no prior knowledge armed, anyone's being harmed, 5 closing argument, prosecutor Later however, portion describing car.2 (Respondent's attorney object this.) arguments, judge considered counts perpetration an armed one count intent murder. affirmed unpublished People 46128 (Dec. 17, 1980), Supreme appeal, 412 Mich. 927 (1982). corpus pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254. alleged conviction supported sufficient introduction Clause. petition. Civ.Action 83-CV-2665-DT (ED Oct. 11, 1984). States Sixth Circuit reversed. (1986). determining bars court must assess confession's "inculpatory value" examining also F.2d, 1212. Here, direct before entering robbed killed. own placed car. light "paucity" malice prosecutor's statement "was powerfully [respondent] respect critical element intent." Id., 1213. Thus, concluded, violated. We granted certiorari, 1168, 106 2888, 90 976 (1986), Circuit's decision conflicts those Courts declined adopt "evidentiary linkage" "contextual implication" approach questions, see, e.g., Belle, 593 487 (CA3 1979) (en banc). II 7 Amendment, Fourteenth guarantees "to confronted witnesses him." confrontation includes cross-examine witnesses. See Pointer Texas, 380 400, 404, 406-407, 85 1065, 1068, 1069-1070, 13 923 (1965). Therefore, defendants pretrial cannot unless confessing takes 8 Ordinarily, witness whose "against" This accords instructions, Francis Franklin, 471 307, 325, n. 9, 105 1965, 1976, 344 (1985), applied many varying contexts. For example, Harris York, 401 222, 91 643, (1971), statements elicited violation Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), impeach credibility, though inadmissible guilt, long accordingly. Similarly, Spencer 385 554, 87 648, 17 606 (1967), convictions purpose sentence enhancement, used purposes guilt. Accord, Marshall Lonberger, 459 422, 438-439, 6, 103 843, 853, 74 646 (1983). Tennessee Street, 409, 414-416, 2078, 2081-2083, 425 (1985) (instruction accomplice's assessing truthfulness claim coerced); Watkins Sowders, 449 341, 347, 101 654, 658, 66 549 (1981) erroneously eyewitness identification evidence); Walder 347 62, 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954) unlawfully seized physical credibility). principle: Amendment said: 9 "[T]here some contexts not, cannot, great, human limitations system ignored. Such context presented extrajudicial codefendant, stands accused side-by-side deliberately spread . ." U.S., 135-136, S.Ct., 1627-1628 (citations omitted). 10 distinction causes "expressly implicat[ed]" accomplice. 124, 1, 1621, 1. slightest doubt prove "powerfully incriminating." 135, 1627. By contrast, (the testimony).3 11 less valid generalization likely obey evidence. Specific helped me crime" more vivid inferential incrimination, hence difficult thrust mind. Moreover, regard explicit issue is, plain simply, possibly expected forget guilt; incrimination judge's may well successful dissuading onto path inference first place, forget. short, while always simple members inference, do general rule. 12 Even significantly, redaction—a possibility itself. 134, 10, 1626, 10. doctrine articulated presumably require end each whether, evidence, has incriminating" new, separate required defendant. obviously lends itself manipulation defense—and numerous mistrials appeals. It might reduced conducting hearing prosecution defense reveal plan introduce, enabling compliance ex ante rather post. feasible Rules (which doubtful—see, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 14), consuming far foolproof. One say, course, certain assuring try separately whenever them sought used. That facile just remedy seem. Joint trials play role system, accounting one-third federal past five years. Memorandum David L. Cook, Administrative Office Courts, Library (Feb. 20, 1987) (available Clerk Court's file). Many trials—for involving large conspiracies import distribute illegal drugs—involve dozen codefendants. Confessions commonplace—and indeed increases number participants, since assurance protected silence. impair both efficiency fairness require, these cases crimes exist, prosecutors bring proceedings, presenting again, repeat inconvenience (and sometimes trauma) testifying, randomly favoring last-tried advantage knowing prosecution's beforehand. generally serve interests avoiding inconsistent verdicts accurate assessment relative culpability—advantages operate benefit. apart tactical considerations, scandal inequity verdicts.4 expansive rule forgo confessions. price high, "are merely 'desirable'; essential society's compelling interest finding, convicting, punishing violate law." Moran Burbine, 475 412, 426, 1135, 1143, 89 410 (1986) (citation 14 juries presumed pragmatic one, rooted absolute certitude presumption true belief represents reasonable accommodation state process. precise facts found inadequate. our discussion above shows, calculus changes name issue. While continue apply rationale validly applies, Cruz 186, 1714, 162, decline extend further. hold existence.5 15 present case, undo effect urging evaluating case. supra, 205, 2. remand, should comments, error basis granting corpus. Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594 (1977). judgment remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. So ordered. 18 MARSHALL join, dissenting. 19 1627-1628, applies Today, draws constitutional magnitude directly identify rely inculpatory factual legal relationships contents jury. jury's indirect guilt based much devastating exclusion latter statement. illogical demeans values neither reason nor experience supports argument impose unacceptable burdens administration justice. "basic premise" kinds hearsay once damaging, suspect, yet discount, trusted give minimal weight logically deserves, whatever give."1 constitutionally mandated skepticism undergirds equally applicable framed "whether set aside although inculpating disregarded innocence." 123-124, 1620-1621. answered question affirmative, noting "where trial." 1627-1628. 21 nevertheless line not. relies category "it evidence." Ante, 208. I agree; read mention defendant.2 Some significant impact But others will. presume, must, full vigorous attention every item acts listening seeing lead inference." Indeed, tacitly acknowledges point; speculates dissuade making all, concedes occurrence, arguing unable "disregard Ibid. judges answer particular case-by-case basis; analysis actually named 22 Instructing him, failed guarantee level certainty uncertainty arose made clear himself. absolutely spreading carefully edited intolerably interfered solemn duty treat nothing meaningless sounds consideration Marsh's innocence. 23 introduced, already established men committed course third. 202. sharp dispute, herself foreseeable result, planned so. quantum admissible establish support conviction. explained: 24 "[T]he show Marsh aided abetted specific intent. presents closer Williams'. indicating harbored Knighton, showing Martin's regarding need 'hurt' 'take out' victims. was, placing scene shootings. indicate, viewed most favorable prosecution, aware served guard 'lookout' escape thought contain proceeds indicates supporting allowed gain entrance. close question, believe motion survive directed verdict." 1201, 1204 (CA6 1986) (emphasis 25 driving residence. conversation, stated "he take robbery." ante, 203, State's principal arrived together. therefore infer overheard Viewed total importance linking intent, expressed afterwards.3 taken stand testified, lawyer cross-examined challenge credibility suggest playing loudly back seat. An acknowledgment done beyond herself. pay order attempt rebut obvious remind what opportunity point damaging 26 are, admittedly, different instead "incriminating face," 208, connection difference common, substantial, jury, resolving relied impermissible evidence.4 27 conserve prosecutorial resources, diminish witnesses, avoid delays known time. Lane, 474 438, 449, 725, 732, 814 (quoting 476). create risks prejudice defendants, often make necessary grant severances. 131, 1625; (Relief Prejudicial Joinder). Government argues choose severance offering outweigh benefits Brief Amicus Curiae 22. scales justice, considerations normally administrative concerns. argued normal "benefits sacrificed declarant." 1626. endorsed Judge Lehman previously Fisher, 249 N.Y. 419, 432, 164 N.E. 336, 341 (1928): 29 "We still adhere destroy age-old regarded fundamental principle jurisprudence legalistic formula, judge, admissions party join secure greater speed, economy convenience principles liberty. high." 30 concern cost trials, valid, prevail effort revive rests irrelevant statistics. makes startling discovery "almost years." 209. precision, 10,904 5-year period.5 added data base figure obtained information times offered cases.6 relevance discern involved conducted decided, issue, appear originated court. seem little difficulty, literally thousands points, maintaining "both system" occur 's reasoning 210. Presumably options immunity, plea bargains, simply waiting trying enabled enforce sacrificing basic premise Clause.7 31 expresses determine substantial unfair prejudice. comply dictates postponing rests, potentially evaluated government's entire enable "manipulation defense," 209, means tailor sure deemed matter, lawyers pursue high-risk strategy "manipulating" enhance prejudicial confession. experienced competent throughout Nation fully capable managing supervising counsel problems insurmountable appellate distracted respectfully dissent.8 entirety read: "On Sunday evening, 29th, 6:30 p.m., my girl friend's 237 Moss, Highland Park, received phone call friend mine He looking James Coleman, Tom. wanted go okay. Then he'd pick up. About black Monte Carlo got told going stick crib, place numbers $5,000 $10,000 place. big silver gave barrelled [sic] .22 revolver. parked across street near wait move didn't want anybody Okay, inside. couple moved entered, older lady dining boy another younger woman couch room. pistol lay floor. upstairs. pistol, also. stayed downstairs people laying bed room you get stairs. us bags ever that's Me started searching rooms find money. lady. said, 'Let's go, let's go.' no. ladies basement thinks moving bullets. how wasn't doing shit like that. dropped off girl's Park supposed together today, share counted That's all." App. 84-1777 (CA6), pp. 88-90. "It's [respondent's] says drives picks over. What's thing says? 'Well, I'm seat car.' 'Did Mr. Williams?' 'No, couldn't loud.' [sic ] reasonable. Why say that? conversation? 'I having radio.' Because admits plan, she's guilty least can't tell that." 164. dissent mistaken believing "assum[e] [Williams'] incriminate respondent." Post, 215, 3. To contrary, harmed disobeyed Our disagreement pertains incriminated assume her. notes "all court." 219. concludes "[f]ederal difficulty" implementing believes implemented. Since handful, fact happened signify prosecutions federal. assuredly applying dissent's interpretation Indeed contrary proposition—as harmfulness enforcement efforts—is Solicitor General appeared urge reversal substantially reasons given. Curiae. express replaced symbol neutral pronoun. 138, 1629, (1968) (Stewart, concurring) original). Learned Hand Frankfurter recognize strain upon ability exclude innocence noted Bruton: "Judge addressed subject several times. instruction, 'recommendation mental gymnastic beyond, powers, anybody's else,' Nash 54 1006, 1007 [CA 1932]; 'Nobody fail caution effective, usually let hearsay,' Gottfried, 165 360, 367 1948]; 'it hard will, matter can, practice observe admonition,' Delli Paoli [United ], 229 319, 321 1956]. referred 'placebo,' medically defined 'a medicinal lie.' " 132, 8, 8. similar vein, observed: "The windfall influenced law, put minds." 352 232, 248, 77 294, 303, 278 (1957) (dissenting opinion). excluded prejudicial. assumes introduced. disagree. victim's residence together, later. house." unrealistic accompany magically apartment did. worth implicating defendant: "I suppose portions implicate declarant effectively deleted. Effective deletion probably omission inculpations codefendants employed identity otherwise established." 143, 1631 added) (WHITE, dissenting). author today adheres 195-196, 1720, 162 dissenting) ("[A] out-of-court traditionally suspicion. himself confessed, chance confession"). (Mar. 25, (establishing figures cited February 1987, carry multiple-defendant admitted). apparently deep-seated fear even-handed jeopardize trials. proposition unsupported basis. ostensible outrages necessary, contending unwise compel "bring beforehand." speculation floats unattached anchor reality. likelihood confessed fairly remote, prospect "presenting again" rhetorical flourish. worst, typical required, nonconfessing defendants. And category, candidates bargaining. Except paucity connecting discussed home. thus unquestionably correct concluding harmless error.

Category: 0