Document: 391 U.S. 123 88 S.Ct. 1620 20 L.Ed.2d 476 George William BRUTON, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 705. Argued March 11, 1968. Decided May 20, Daniel P. Reardon, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case presents question, last considered in Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 232, 77 294, 278, whether conviction a defendant at joint trial should be set aside although jury was instructed that codefendant's confession inculpating had to disregarded determining his guilt or innocence. 2 A petitioner and one Evans District Court Eastern Missouri resulted both by on federal charge armed postal robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2114. inspector testified orally confessed him committed robbery. The obtained oral confession, another which admitted he an accomplice whom would not name, course two interrogations city jail Missouri, where held custody state criminal charges. Both appealed their convictions Appeals Eighth Circuit. That court Evans' ground confessions have been received evidence against him. 375 F.2d 355, 361.1 However, court, relying upon Paoli, affirmed petitioner's because judge competent it inadmissible hearsay therefore F.2d, 361—363.2 We granted certiorari reconsider Paoli. 389 818, 126, 19 70. has since submitted memorandum stating 'in light record this particular interests justice, judgment below reversed cause remanded new trial.' states disposition is urged part '(h)ere determined wrongly (Evans) reversed, leading acquitted. To argue, situation, (petitioner's) nevertheless stand may place too great strain (Delli Paoli) rule—at least, where, as here other (petitioner) strong.' concluded, however, overruled. hold that, substantial risk jury, despite instructions contrary, looked incriminating extrajudicial statements guilt, admission violated right cross-examination secured Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment. overrule reverse. 3 basic premise 'reasonably possible follow' sufficiently clear disregard confessor's statement codefendant participated with committing crime. U.S., 239, S.Ct., 299. If were true reference codefendant, no question arise under Clause, hypothesis treated if confessor made nonconfessor. But decided effectively repudiated its premise. Before discussing this, we pause observe Pointer State Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 13 923, confirmed 'that included accused confront witnesses him' Amendment, id., 404, 1068; 'a major reason underlying constitutional confrontation rule give charged crime opportunity cross-examine him.' Id., 406—407, 1069. 4 applied Douglas Alabama, 415, 1074, 934, circumstances analogous those present case. There persons, Loyd Douglas, assault intent murder, tried separately. first found guilty. At Douglas' called witness An appeal pending from Loyd's invoked privilege self-incrimination refused answer any questions. prosecution permitted treat hostile witness. Under guise refreshing recollection prosecutor questioned asking confirm deny read document purported confession. These inculpated inability denied 'the Clause.' 419, 1077. noted 'effective only his. did do so, but relied refuse answer.' 420, prejudice even more serious than Douglas. In said, 'Although Solicitor's reading alleged statement, refusals answer, technically testimony, well equivalent jury's mind testimony fact statement; reliance created situation might improperly infer true.' Here to, actually evidence. legitimate extent properly before during deliberations. Even greater, then, likelihood believe they true—not just self-incriminating portions implicating well. Plainly, introduction added substantial, perhaps critical, weight Government's form subject cross-examination, take stand. Petitioner thus confrontation. 5 assumed encroachment could avoided instruction evidence.3 But, assumption repudiated. True, repudiation context New York voluntariness itself. Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 12 908. Nonetheless message clear. there constitutionally entitled least determine voluntrarily submitting assessment credibility. More specifically, expressly rejected proposition when ignore find involuntary. 388—389, 1786—1788. Significantly, supported conclusion dissenting Frankfurter four Justices who dissented 388, n. 15, 1787. 6 dissent challenged inculpation nonconfessor latter's guilt. 'The matter often such admonition misuse intrinsically ineffective effect nonadmissible declaration cannot wiped brains jurors. becomes futile collocation words fails purpose legal protection defendants tell.' 247, 302. went say, quoted cited note Jackson, Government windfall having influenced which, law, consider put out minds.' 248, 303. same effect, also note, concurring Krulewitch 336 440, 453, 69 716, 723, 93 L.Ed. 790: naive prejudicial effects can overcome * all practicing lawyers know unmitigated fiction. *'4 7 significance suggested Chief Traynor People Aranda, 63 Cal.2d 518, 528—529, 47 Cal.Rptr. 353, 358—359, 407 P.2d 265, 271—272: 8 directly concerned obviating rely unconstitutionally defendant's logic extends risks statements. denial due process presumed ability involuntary 9 'Indeed, latter task difficult perform former. procedure, process, required finding, then presumably trials, admissible inculpates defendant, never deleted expected overwhelming considering innocence declarant ignoring codefendants declarant. 'segregate into separate intellectual boxes.' It insofar admits acts B time inevitable A.'5 10 addition our action 1966 amending Rule 14 Federal Rules Criminal Procedure evidences Paoli's authorizes severance appears prejudiced trial.6 amended provide '(i)n ruling motion order attorney government deliver inspection camera intends introduce Advisory Committee said explanation amendment: 11 'A co-defendant co-defendant. dispelled does Limiting erase prejudice. amendment procedure whereby issue resolved severance. *'7 Those defended limiting area several reasons support. Judge Learned Hand, particularly severe critic juries counted hearsay,8 wrote Second Circuit conviction. 229 319. Hand's view instruction, really capable preventing evidence, way around exclusionary rules defensible 'probably furthers, rather impedes, search truth *.' Nash Cir., 54 1006, 1007. Insofar implies ought benefit prove guilt,9 overlooks alternative ways achieving without infringing nonconfessor's confrontation.10 Where viable alternatives exist, deceptive pursuit defend clearly harmful practice. Another defense justification trials general, argument being benefits proceedings sacrificed requiring use Joint conserve funds, diminish inconvenience public authorities, avoid delays bringing trial. cogently stated Lehman Appeals, Fisher, 249 N.Y. 432, 164 N.E. 336, 341: 15 'We still adhere them *. destroy age-old past regarded fundamental principle jurisprudence legalistic formula, judge, admissions party join them. secure greater speed, economy convenience administration law price principles liberty. high.' 16 Finally, advanced majority tie result maintenance system. 'Unless proceed basis will follow court's are reasonably them, system makes little sense.' 242, 300. agree many justified. Not every reversible error unavoidable through instructions; instances occur almost creeps in, usually inadvertently. fair perfect one.' Lutwak 344 604, 619, 73 481, 490, 97 593; see Hopt Utah, 120 430, 438, 614, 617, 30 708; cf. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 52(a). unreasonable conclude cases judge's information. Nevertheless, recognized supra, some contexts not, cannot, so great, consequences failure vital practical human limitations ignored. Compare supra; Throckmorton Holt, 180 552, 567, 21 474, 480, 45 663; Mora 190 749; Holt 94 90. Such presented here, powerfully stands side-by-side deliberately spread incriminations devastating credibility inevitably suspect, accomplices weigh carefully given motivation shift blame onto others.11 unreliability intolerably compounded accomplice, testify tested cross-examination. threats directed.12 supra. 17 We, course, acknowledge impossibility militating striking down involved. enough posed 'substantial rights entirely coercion fairly reliably determined. hazards ignore.' 389, 1787, threat him, hazard ignore. Despite concededly petitioner, accept adequate substitute all. See Anderson 318 350, 356—357, 599, 602, 87 829; Burgett 109, 115, 258, 262, Reversed. BLACK concurs 246, 302, 278. MARSHALL took consideration decision STEWART, concurring. 22 I Although 368 (see 427), 1807, 908, holding share Court's compels overruling 23 Quite apart think rationale Amendment's precludes cautionary highly damaging out-ofcourt placed seems me, certain kinds (see, e.g., 923; 934) once damaging, yet discount, jurors trusted minimal logically deserves, whatever give. opinion, ante, 136, 12. very out-of-court accusation universally conceded accused, worth. Denno controlling, therefore, must 24 WHITE, dissenting. 25 Whether nothing relevant material Bruton's Bruton. As hearsay, presumptively unreliable nonparty Admitting Bruton require unless harmless. 26 different view. He Evans, Bruton, innocence.* Contrary decade ago 278 (1957), now holds insufficient reverses apparently reverse regardless circumstances. excessively rigid rule. suggest instructions. learning indicating less reliable be. prior decisions supports 27 concedes justified—'(N)ot inadvertently.' Ante, 135. asserts, permitting hear assume heed instruction. respect himself 908 (1964). good reasons, distinguishing trusting former so. 28 First, own probably most probative Though itself constitutes direct facts relates. eyewitness observer correctly perceive, understand, remember another, come actor himself, knowledgeable unimpeachable source information about conduct. Certainly, profound impact much justifiably doubt told continue sound law. 29 Second, remembered coerced excluded thought unreliable. Regardless how be, specific provisions Constitution demand it, '(i)t axiomatic deprived founded, whole part, regard falsity 376, 1780. 385—386, 1785—1786. giving prospective Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966), specifically reaffirmed falsity, Johnson Jersey, 719, 729, 9, 1772, 1778, 882 (1966). acknowledged apply situations danger (of statements) necessarily subjected overt obvious coercion.' 730, 1779. And, Tehan States ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 416, 459, 465, 453 Griffin California, 609, 1229, 106 (1965), retroactive, quite explicitly Fifth adjunct ascertainment truth. privilege, like guarantees Fourth values exclusion serve ends but, concluded 382, 1783, difficulty understanding policy, putting aside, finding consequence used different. deal firm compare evidentiary value. wholly inadmissible. dangers inaccuracy characterize generally. Furthermore, eyewitness, accuracy whose conduct open account actions. traditionally viewed special suspicion. Crawford 212 183, 204, 260, 268, 53 465 (1909); Holmgren 217 509, 523—524, 588, 591—592, 861 (1910). Caminetti 242 470, 495, 37 192, 198, 61 442 (1917); Mathes, Jury Instruction Forms Cases, F.R.D. 39, 68—69 (1961). Due strong implicate exonerate what credible ordinary Whereas possesses reliability value reliable. 31 coerced, untrue protect values. following contrast, enter determination understand. Just believes instructed. Indeed, pick choose between deemed effective cured instructions, codefendants' belong category latter, doubly suspect. believing wide range ignore, old me did. 32 common experience men informed 'facts' judgment, sufficient grounds discrediting veracity source. Responsible impossible focus attention jurymen exercising capacity men. Because serious-minded responsible able shut minds reject empty gesture. 33 announces today severely limit together committing. Unquestionably, economical minimize burden witnesses, prosecutors, courts. They concedes. worth saying apt varying legally indistinguishable defendants. unfairness prosecutorial seeing separately strenuously jockeying position tried. 34 difficulties potential unfairness, am disappointed spelled courts business consistent today's opinion. suppose necessary exclude deleted. Effective deletion omission indirect inculpations employed identity otherwise established. Of distort either Government. feasible, try save time, money, effort, best seek earliest stage offending adopt proper procedures insuring harmless gotten jury. Oral statements, involved case, problems, testifying inadvertently exceed permissible limits. Except recommending caution anticipate issues concrete factual situations. 35 hope, sure, using these escape reversal ruling. persist unnecessarily burdens already conducting 36 HARLAN joins abandoning original disagreement 427, expressed began June 1966, week after 694. held, 357, companion applicable controlling admissibility inspector's admissions. 882. On April 8, Louis police officers, preliminary warnings kind absence counsel, interrogation jail. inspector, interrogated 4, 1966; date. merits, 361, 'were tainted infected poison prior, unconstitutional local officer,' Westover Miranda, 494—497, 1638 1640. retrial, close cautioned 'if used, Evans. concerned, you hearsay.' following: outside Therefore, voluntarily intentionally Bruton.FN 'It your duty separate, personal each individual defendant. When analyze shows individual, leaving solely Each emphasize traditional 790; Fiswick 329 211, 67 224, 91 196, problem arising (but violation Westover, 1) C. McCormick, Evidence 239 (1954); J. Wigmore, §§ 1048—1049 (3d ed. 1940); Morgan, Admissions Exception Hearsay Rule, Yale L.J. 355 (1921). generally Levie, Conspiracy, 52 Mich.L.Rev. 1159 Comment, Post-Conspiracy Prosecutions, U.Chi.L.Rev. 710 (1957); Note, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 920, 984—990 (1959). us, exception intimate exceptions raise questions Clause. Barber Page, 390 1318, 255; Mattox 156 237, 337, 39 409. supra 224; 1362—1365, 1397; Dangers Application Concept, 62 177 (1948). Several setting convictions. See, Floyd Wilkins, 367 990; Bozza, 365 206; Greenwell 119 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 962; Jones 284, 342 863; Barton 263 894; Hill Deegan, D.C., 268 F.Supp. 580. Bozza stated: realistically twelve women Jones' privacy room, yielded nigh irresistible temptation fill blanks keys Kuhle provided ask intelligent Kuhle's anyone yield, colleagues persuaded dismiss answers mind.' 215. include 265; Young, 46 N.J. 152, 215 A.2d 352. Barbaro, 395 Ill. 264, N.E.2d 692; Rosen, 151 Ohio 339, 24. compounds disregarding hearsay. Broeder, University Chicago Project, 38 Neb.L.Rev. 744, 753—755 405, 1068: declared deprive Fourteenth guarantee law.' Joinder governed 8(b) Procedure. designed promote efficiency multiplicity objectives achieved Daley 231 123, 125. important element bearing Blumenthal 332 539, 559—560, 68 257—258, 92 154. 419. Single Trials Procedure, 74 553 (1965). Hand addressed times. 'recommendation mental gymnastic beyond, powers, anybody's else,' 1007; 'Nobody indeed fail effective, let hearsay,' Gottfried, 165 360, 367; 'it hard will, can, practice admonition,' 319, 321. referred 'placebo,' medically defined medicinal lie.' Jerome Frank 'is 'judicial lie': undermines moral relationship courts, jurors, public; judicial deception, damages decent justice.' Grunewald, 233 556, 574. 3, 2272, 416. E. Some Problems Proof Anglo-American System Litigation 105 (1956), suggests fosters inconsistent attitude toward 'treating times group low-grade morons endowed superhuman control emotions intellects.' Shepard 290 96, 104, 22, 25, 78 196; Meltzer, Involuntary Confessions: Allocation Responsibility Between Jury, 317, 326 (1954). retrial Cal.2d, 526, Cal.Rptr., 358, P.2d, 270, said: 'When, all, longer room compromise. prejudicing nonconfessing justified need introducing it. Accordingly, erroneous declarant.' 4. references practicable. Oliver 118 335 724; Vitagliano, N.Y.2d 258 N.Y.S.2d 839, 206 864; La Belle, 276 105, 222 727. For criticisms suggesting deletions (redaction) ineffective, see, 990 (1959); 710, 713 553, 564 offered inspector. 'Where means redaction patently impractical. expect relate X's including Y frailty. Again, unlikely intentional accidental slip remedied disregard.' Col.J. Law & Soc.Prob. 80, (1967). promulgated governing confessions. Frank, 324. 465; 442; Stoneking 232 385. obviated. certainly seem contrary acceptance 'inadmissible cross-examination.' Post, 138. theory deficiencies, suppressions, sources untrustworthiness, lie underneath bare untested assertion witness, brought exposed test Cross-examination.' 1362, 3. excluding requires matter. Surely suggestion example, long 'all generally.' 141. observes, '(i)f 126. my explore considerations

Category: 0