Opinion ID: 4524140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Redacted Interview

Text: Detective Howard’s preceding testimony impermissibly linked Benjamin’s redacted statements to appellant in violation of Bruton and Carpenter. We thus hold that admission of the redacted interview was error and that the error was not harmless. Just before the jury heard Benjamin’s redacted testimony, the government elicited the following testimony from Detective Howard: GOVERNMENT: Now, before we get to the transcript itself during the course of the interview with defendant Benjamin. Did he indicate whether he knew an individual by the name of Irik Wynn or E? DETECTIVE HOWARD: He did. GOVERNMENT: And what did he indicate about that? DETECTIVE HOWARD: He indicated that he knew E from the area of Clay Street or the area that he frequents Central Avenue. From the area. GOVERNMENT: And at this point, Your Honor, if I may I’d like to hand Government’s Exhibit 48 back to the detective. May I approach? THE COURT: Yes. GOVERNMENT: Detective, at this point I’m going to ask you to read the portions that are marked the defendant Michael 16 Benjamin and I’ll read the portions that are marked as detective Howard; okay? Immediately after the foregoing exchange, the government re-enacted Benjamin’s interview—with the prosecutor reading Benjamin’s part—in which Benjamin acknowledged several times that, shortly after his argument with Smith over the debt, a call was made from Benjamin’s cellphone to “the other guy”: BENJAMIN: No, I never, I never told him he was around there or nothing. DETECTIVE HOWARD: Did you call though? BENJAMIN: He ain’t answer.