Opinion ID: 607639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant-Tyler

Text: 13 Defendant-Tyler argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to sever after he was allegedly implicated in a co-defendant's confession. During Agent Bowden's cross-examination by counsel for defendant-Robinson, counsel asked if defendant-Sanders, while confessing, ever mentioned the name Reginald Robinson. Before Bowden could answer, the district court sustained objections to the question. Defendant-Tyler contends that under United States v. Bruton, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that implicates another defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation), he was prejudiced when counsel for defendant-Robinson merely suggested that co-defendant-Sanders' confession implicated other defendants, including defendant-Tyler. Defendant-Tyler's reliance on Bruton is misplaced. The question directed at Agent Bowden referred to defendant-Robinson only; it did not implicate defendant-Tyler. Furthermore, because no answer was permitted, there was no statement admitted implicating any other defendants. Thus, Bruton does not apply, and defendant-Tyler's argument fails.