Opinion ID: 307207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: clifford appeal

Text: 128 Clifford appeals from a judgment of conviction in the District Court for the Central District of California of armed robbery (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a) and (d)) of the Valley National Bank at Edgemont, California, and was sentenced for a period of 15 years. Execution of the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for 5 years. 129 The central issue on Clifford's appeal is the existence of reversible error by reason of a claimed violation of the rule of Bruton v. United States, supra. 130 During the prosecutor's redirect examination of the Government's witness, Carroll, before the Clifford jury, the prosecutor asked Carroll about a conversation he had with Sidman on May 20 or May 22, 1970: What did Mr. Sidman tell you in regard to the robbery of the bank on February 20, 1970? Defense counsel's hearsay objection was overruled and Carroll replied, He told me that him and Mr. Clifford robbed it. 4 131 Sidman did not testify at Clifford's trial, and he was not available for cross-examination. 132 The Government argues that the hearsay objection was properly overruled because the testimony was admissible under the concert of action exception to the hearsay rule, 5 citing United States v. Adams, 446 F.2d 681 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 404 U.S. 943, 92 S.Ct. 294, 30 L.Ed.2d 257 (1971), and Kay v. United States, 421 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1970). The limitation on the exception is stated in Kay. Where, as in Bruton, the chief objective of the conspiracy has ended, either in success or failure, the extra-judicial statements of a co-defendant are not admissible. (421 F.2d at 1010.) (Citations omitted.) 133 The joint activity of Sidman and Clifford, if any, had ended before Sidman's conversation with Carroll. Carroll never had any relationship with Clifford. The evidence was inadmissible hearsay. (E. g., Bruton v. United States, supra; Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 69 S.Ct. 716, 93 L. Ed. 790 (1949); Pulido v. United States, 425 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1970). 134 The admission of Sidman's extrajudicial accusation violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Sidman did not testify and he was not practicably available for cross-examination. (See Bruton v. United States, supra; cf., Nelson v. O'Neil, 402 U.S. 622, 91 S.Ct. 1723, 29 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S. Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). 135 We cannot say that the Bruton error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Other evidence linking Clifford to the robbery was not overwhelming. (Cf., Harrington v. California, supra). Testimony by two eyewitnesses who identified Clifford as one of the robbers was not strong. 6 The remaining evidence was Carroll's testimony that Clifford told him that he and Sidman robbed the bank. The jury's assessment of this evidence, had it not heard Carroll testify to Sidman's confession, is highly problematical. 136 We do not reach Clifford's other arguments on appeal. None of the claimed error is likely to recur on retrial if the Government chooses to proceed with this case. 137 We reverse Clifford's conviction.