Opinion ID: 157126
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Out-of-Court Statements

Text: Mr. Cummings’ five additional challenges are also without merit. First, petitioner asserts that the admission of statements by non-testifying witnesses violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, as construed in Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123 (1968). We find no constitutional error in the trial court’s treatment of the co-defendants’ out-of-court statements. Although Bruton prohibits jury consideration of non-testifying co-defendant statements that incriminate the defendant, see id. at 136-37; Nelson v. O’Neil , 402 U.S. 622, 62628 (1971), here, both co-defendants took the stand and were subject to crossexamination. Moreover, the statements referenced by Mr. Cummings were never introduced into evidence. One co-defendant denied making the statement the prosecution sought to admit, and the other testified he could not remember making the statement. This ended any questioning into these statements. Additionally, Mr. Cummings’ name was not mentioned at any time during this testimony. Thus, there was no Bruton error at trial. See Nelson , 402 U.S. at 62930 (finding no constitutional error when co-defendant testified and denied an outof-court statement implicating defendant); Richardson v. Marsh , 481 U.S. 200, - 14 - 211 (1987) (holding that Bruton does not apply where defendant is not incriminated). Mr. Cummings also appears to raise a due process claim based on the alleged admission of these same statements. This claim fails for the same reasons cited above. Furthermore, we have no authority to consider any error of state law on habeas review unless it violates federal law. See Estelle v. McGuire , 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). We find no such violation on this issue.