Opinion ID: 2423415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plater's Video Testimony and the Confrontation Clause

Text: Martin further argues that the admission of Plater's video-taped statements to police, in which she relayed statements that Johnson made to her regarding the murder, violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Bruton. Martin argues that Plater's description of Johnson's statements, even in redacted form, improperly implicated Martin, who did not have the opportunity to cross-examine Johnson about those statements. As a constitutional matter, Martin's argument fails because Johnson's statements  even assuming imperfect redaction  were not testimonial and thus not subject to the strictures of the Sixth Amendment under Bruton. See Thomas v. United States, 978 A.2d 1211, 1219, 1226-27 (D.C.2009). [5] Like those in Thomas, these statements were casual remarks to acquaintances: It would be ludicrous to characterize any of the statements as a solemn declaration or as having been made to establish past facts for use in a criminal prosecution or investigation or otherwise. In each instance, the speaker simply was not acting as a witness; []he was not testifying. What []he said was not `a weaker substitute for live testimony' at trial. Thomas, supra, 978 A.2d at 1227 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we hold, as in Thomas, that the trial court did not err in concluding that the statements were not testimonial and hence not subject to the strictures of Crawford ... and Bruton.  Id. Nor, assuming he has even preserved the issue, can Martin fairly dispute the admission of Johnson's statements under Carpenter v. United States, 430 A.2d 496 (D.C.1981) (en banc), and Super. Ct.Crim. R. 14. `Rule 14 requires that the trial court take appropriate steps to minimize the prejudice inherent in codefendant confessions which are inadmissible against the nondeclarant defendant.' Thomas, supra, 978 A.2d at 1223 (quoting Carpenter, supra, 430 A.2d at 502). The confession must be redacted to eliminate all incriminating references to the co-defendant; [a] limiting instruction alone is not a sufficient prophylaxis. Id. at 1224 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Before playing Plater's video-taped statement for the jury, the trial court ensured that the statement was redacted to Martin's satisfaction. Any explicit reference to Martin was redacted in an artful way so that the redacted statement was not an obvious alteration. The use of the neutral pronoun we in portions of Plater's statements did not facially implicate Martin and was therefore not prejudicial, because we [is] indefinite; the term [does] not identify anyone with particularity other than the declarant. See id. at 1236 (discussing Plater v. United States, 745 A.2d 953, 961 (D.C.2000)). Finally, even assuming the redactions could have been even more complete, substantial evidence of Martin's guilt was presented to the jury, and we are unpersuaded that any shortcomings in the redaction affected the jury's verdict. Affirmed.