Opinion ID: 278481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Codefendants' Statements

Text: 4 The post-arrest statements of co-defendants Haynes, LaMagna and Coduto were introduced at the trial. Appellant made no objection and requested no instruction limiting the jury's consideration of these statements to the individual declarant. Clearly appellant was entitled to such an instruction. Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 69 S.Ct. 716, 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949). Indeed, it was incumbent upon the court to give such an instruction even though not requested by any of the defendants. Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 294, 1 L.Ed.2d 278 (1957), Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953). 5 Appellant points out that no limiting instruction was given following the introduction of the statements of Haynes and LaMagna. Appellant fails to mention, however, that when the first of the statements of the codefendants, that of Coduto, was put into evidence, the court sua sponte generally instructed the jury that any one defendant's statement binds only that defendant and no other. 1 6 Appellant's claim of error is, actually, not that the jury was not instructed, but that the instruction was not repeated after each defendant's statement. We note that even after the court had instructed the jury after the Coduto statement, appellant's counsel made no request for a repetition of the instruction after the Haynes and LaMagna statements. We cannot agree with appellant that this failure to repeat the instruction was error. The instruction given by the court after Coduto's statement was, by its terms, applicable to the statements of any defendant. We presume, as we must, that the jury so understood it, and that it properly followed that instruction in considering the guilt of each defendant. The evidence, other than the implication contained in these statements, was ample to sustain the jury's verdict. Cf. Calhoun v. United States, 368 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1966). We find no error in failing to give additional limiting instructions. Cf. Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 decided June 12, 1967.