Document: 481 U.S. 186 107 S.Ct. 1714 95 L.Ed.2d 162 Eulogio CRUZ, Petitionerv.NEW YORK. No. 85-5939. Argued Dec. 1, 1986. Decided April 21, 1987. Syllabus Under Bruton v. United States, 391 123, 88 1620, 20 476, a defendant is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment when codefendant's incriminating confession introduced at their joint trial, even if jury instructed to consider that only against codefendant. At petitioner's and brother's trial for felony murder gas station attendant, court allowed State, over objection, introduce videotaped he had killed attendant who just shot petitioner. The brother did not himself testify, warned was be used State also called witness testified about conversation with petitioner which recited essentially same facts as confession. New York Court Appeals affirmed conviction, adopting reasoning plurality opinion in Parker Randolph, 442 62, 99 2132, 60 713, require excluded because confessed "interlocked" brother's. Held: 1. Where nontestifying facially directly admissible defendant, bars its admission it defendant's own admitted him. plurality's view inapplicable cases involving interlocking confessions rejected favor Justice BLACKMUN's that, although introduction cannot cure violation caused by confession, might, some cases, render harmless. predicated on erroneous theory has confessed, will seldom, ever, "devastating" character required prove violation. Although effect, so context justification excluding entire category codefendant implicate factor whose existence must assessed case-by-case basis. assumption an precludes devastation rendered untenable infinite variability inculpatory statements likely effect juries. In fact, "interlocking" bears inverse relationship devastation, since corroborates alleged significantly harms case, whereas one positively incompatible gives credence assertion nonexistent or false. nature pertains harmfulness but reliability, which, relevant whether should evidence irrelevant questions obey instruction disregard jury's failure do inconsequential. Pp. 189-193. 2. may considered assessing are supported sufficient "indicia reliability" him (assuming "unavailability") despite lack opportunity cross-examination, appeal any 193—194. 66 N.Y.2d 61, 495 N.Y.S.2d 14, 485 N.E.2d 221 (1985), reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered Court, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, JJ., joined. WHITE, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., POWELL O'CONNOR, joined, post, p. 194. Robert S. Dean, City, Peter D. Coddington, respondent. H. Klonoff, amicus curiae, special leave Court. SCALIA 1 476 (1968), we held 713 (1979), considered, were unable authoritatively resolve, question applies where corroborating codefendant, We resolve today. 2 * Jerry Cruz murdered March 15, 1982. That tried convicted, investigation led solving other. On day following Cruz's murder, several later occasions, police talked Jerry's Norberto killing. 27, first time informed November 29, 1981, visit Benjamin apartment shared Jerry. (Eulogio long friends Cruz, two sets brothers related.) said nervous wearing blood stained bandage around arm. According Norberto, confided gone Bronx night before, intending rob it; struggled; after grabbed gun from behind counter arm, claimed gave similar account incident. 3 May 3, 1982, questioned Cruz. He strongly denied connection homicide became frustrated seemed unwilling believe Suddenly, would tell truth killing someone guilty, spontaneously attendant. Later evening, detailed Assistant District Attorney, he, Eulogio, fourth man robbed station, Eulogio. indicted 4 jointly, Eulogio's objection. Likewise judge prosecutor Benjamin's warning government 29 Benjamin. Finally, testimony, forensic evidence, photographs scene all corroborated recounted Norberto. trial's end, however, Norberto's testimony stood linked crime. attorney persuade suspected fabricated gain revenge. Unconvinced, convicted both defendants. 5 Benjamin's. granted certiorari. 1168, 106 2888, 90 976 (1986). II 6 guarantees right criminal "to confronted witnesses him." have guarantee, extended States Fourteenth Amendment, includes cross-examine witnesses. See Pointer Texas, 380 400, 404, 85 1065, 1068, 13 923 (1965). more defendants therefore, pretrial them implicates others unless confessing waives Fifth permit cross-examination. 7 Ordinarily, "against" purposes part body guilt. Therefore, limiting assess guilt other Bruton, this principle applied validate, Clause, implicating instructions insofar consideration concerned. said: 8 "[T]here contexts risk not, cannot, follow great, consequences vital practical human limitations system ignored. Such presented here, powerfully extrajudicial stands accused side-by-side deliberately spread before trial. Not incriminations devastating credibility inevitably suspect. . ." U.S., 135-136, S.Ct., 1627-1628 (citations omitted). 9 occasion revisit issue Parker, resembled major respects save one: Each jointly him, those codefendants. four Justices found no It understood hold violated case. When reasoned, "[his] case already been devastated," 75, n. 7, 2140, "will 'devastating' referred Bruton," impeaching cross-examination "would yield small advantage," id., 73, 2139. Thus, confessions. remaining participating disagreed, subscribing expressed BLACKMUN harmless, could cause constitute Id., 77-80, 2141-2142 (BLACKMUN, concurring judgment). (Justice alone went find make error harmless thereby producing majority affirmance convictions. 80-81, 2142-2143.) face again today evenly divided Parker. 10 adopt approach espoused BLACKMUN. While factors might sometimes departure general rule suffice exclude improper 136, 1628, suggest such Rather, justifications excepting impossible imagine why there category, generally "devastating," "interlock" "[T]he (whether made codefendants), juries, makes [the preclude devastation] untenable." 84, 2145 (STEVENS, dissenting). example, precise content open question, they depended upon acceptance videotape. 11 seems us devastation. A relatively story tells different told, enormously damaging confirms, essential respects, otherwise standing does than support very But real world litigation, seeking avoid confession—on ground accurately reported, really true made. present sought establish motive falsely reporting never fact occurred. circumstances Quite obviously, what rather reliability: If confirms true. Its (despite cross-examination) see Lee Illinois, 530, 2056, 514 (1986), conceivably whether, assuming admitted, it, law command respect inexplicable exception supposed constitutional imperative adopted. Having decided honest holds. 12 dissent effort respond these points, urging instead rejection our "remorseless logic" "common sense judgment." 197. qualities, most remorseless form, separable. illogical, therefore contrary common good judgment, less taken into admissions; harmful confirm validity Far carrying outer limits logic," ibid., holding here reaffirm central proposition. This indistinguishable deemed area: likelihood disregarded, 135, 1627; probability 1628; determinability advance Richardson Marsh, 200, 1702, 176 (1987). supra, Of course, "unavailability" codefendant) Lee, 543-544, 2063-2064; 128, 1623, Harrington California, 395 250, 89 1726, 23 284 (1969). 14 Because analyzed claim now rejected, reverse remand further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 15 So ordered. 16 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, POWELL, O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 17 involved defendant.1 Concededly, followed error, otherwise. "some contexts"—and fell category—the chance "so great" admit 1627-1628. "posed substantial threat confront him," ignore. 137, 1628. 18 confessed. Here, otherwise: properly jury. Yet Court's inadmissible completely himself, is, substantially consistent elements crime threaten incriminate 19 little me. probably probative can Though itself out-of-court statement, reliable constitutes direct relates. Even eyewitness An observer correctly perceive, understand, remember acts another, admissions come actor knowledgeable unimpeachable source information past conduct." 139-140, 1629-1630 (WHITE, Confessions profound impact much Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 908 (1964), justifiable doubt juries told so. hearsay traditionally viewed suspicion. Holmgren 217 509, 523-524, 30 588, 591-592, 54 L.Ed. 861 (1910); Crawford 212 183, 204, 260, 268, 53 465 (1909). And informed. too great rely I disagree proposition every jury, tempted disobey fail understand presumptively unreliable defendant. Nor remotely possible Bruton.2 finds "impossible imagine" ever inapplicable; conclusion "illogical." Ante, 191-193. many Judges—as embrace harmless-error rule—are unimaginative; nothing adhering traditional presumption instructions.3 decision matter imagination logic, judgment interpreting Constitution. disallowed posed "substantial threat" rights. defy logic circumstances, interlocks codefendant's, magnitude. seem justify extension sound rule, prevail. Otherwise, especially applying prophylactic rules, trivialize principles prior situations pose dangers rules intended obviate. 21 states "[W]e consequences" decision. 193. 176, today, recognizes without serious disruption State's ability conduct trials. Richardson, though redacted eliminate references fear being disobeyed instructions, drawn unfavorable inferences challenged together evidence. Marsh 781 F.2d 1201 (CA6 1986). possibility, thus rejecting claim, ----, 22 conviction saved comfort prosecutors judges. former seek trials occurs, commit admitting separately problems avoided. "conserve state funds, diminish inconvenience public authorities, delays bringing trial," 134, 1626, say possibility verdicts severance overburdened federal systems. 209-210, 1707-1708. adhere views (1979). There avoid, inquire error. announcing address situation extend heard 24 Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597 (1980), often event identified.4 carries numerous indicia reliability; gather disposition deny courts, remand, deal admissibility Evans charged robbery postal funds jewelry store operated contract branch Post Office Department. 375 355, 357 (CA8 1967). readily identified store's owner another employee, knew frequent visitor store, identify Evans' accomplice. Ibid. employee she failed lineup three persons, second lineup, previous lineup. App. O.T. 1967, 705, pp. 70-73. " 'interlocking' devastation." 192. reasoning, weight whatsoever majority's excuse ignoring apparently vary somewhat nature, and, imposes significant burdens prosecution, 1708-1709, (1987), confined change verdict, say, greatest misconduct lead innocent self-evident class, fit description far better As read Second, Seventh, Eleventh Circuits course rejects. ex rel. Catanzaro Mancusi, 404 296, 300 (CA2 1968); Paternina-Vergara, 749 993, 998-999 1984); Spinks, 470 64 (CA7 1972); Kroesser, 731 1509 (CA11 1984). Fourth lean direction, Smith, 792 441, 443 (CA4 1986); Mack Maggio, 538 1129 (CA5 1976); Miller, 666 991, 997-999 1982); Tenth Circuit's difference between legal nicety, Metropolis Turner, 437 207 (CA10 1971). Third, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth take route. DiGilio, 972 (CA3 Hodges Rose, 570 643, 647 1978); 622 298 1980); Espericueta-Reyes, 631 616, 624, (CA9 1980). Judges addressed approximately equally apply cases. commented Lee: "In inadmissibility contested. necessarily constitutionally defendant." 552, 5, 2068, 5.

Category: 0