Document: 523 U.S. 185118 S.Ct. 1151140 L.Ed.2d 294 Kevin D. GRAY, Petitioner,v.MARYLAND. No. 96-8653. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 8, 1997. Decided March 9, 1998. Syllabus * Anthony Bell confessed to police that he, petitioner Gray, and another man participated in beating caused Stacy Williams' death. After third died, a Maryland grand jury indicted Gray for murder, State tried them jointly. When trial judge permitted introduce redacted version Bell's confession, detective who read it said "deleted'' or "deletion'' whenever name participant appeared. Immediately after reading, however, answered affirmatively when prosecutor asked, "after [Bell] gave you information, subsequently were able arrest . Gray; is correct?'' The also introduced written copy confession with two names omitted, leaving their place blanks separated by commas. instructed could be used as evidence only against Bell, not Gray. convicted both defendants. Maryland's intermediate appellate court held Bruton v. States, 391 123, 88 1620, 20 476, prohibited use set aside Gray's conviction. highest disagreed reinstated Held: here at issue, which substituted word "delete'' proper name, falls within class statements Bruton's protective rule applies. Pp. ____-____. (a) involved defendants jointly same crime, one incriminating himself other. This that, despite limiting instruction should consider confessing codefendant, introduction such joint violates nonconfessing defendant's Sixth Amendment right cross-examine witnesses. explained this situation, powerfully extrajudicial codefendant are deliberately spread before trial, contexts risk will not, cannot, follow instructions so great, consequences failure devastating defendant, cannot allowed. See U.S., 135-136, S.Ct., 1627-1628. scope was limited Richardson Marsh, 481 200, 211, 107 1702, 1709, 95 176, Confrontation Clause violated admission nontestifying codefendant's eliminate but any reference his her existence. (b) Unlike Richardson's refers directly "existence.'' Redactions simply replace an obvious blank space symbol other similarly indications alteration leave considered class, closely resemble unredacted warrant legal results. For thing, often react here, realize specifically even does blatantly link defendant deleted did below asking whether arrested on basis information confession. deletion may well call jurors' attention specially removed name. By encouraging speculate about reference, redaction overemphasize importance confession's accusation-once jurors work out reference. Finally, protected some alteration, function way grammatically: They point to, accuse, codefendant. (c) Although placed outside incriminate inferentially, 208, 1707-1708, must inference connect control result here. Inference pure simple make critical difference. If did, then would confessions use, e.g., nicknames unique descriptions, whereas has assumed identifiers fall inside protection, see Harrington California, 395 250, 253, 89 1726, 1728, 23 284. Thus, depend significant part upon kind of, fact inference. inferences refer himself, became "only linked later trial.'' 1707-1708. In contrast, involve redaction, obviously someone, ordinarily immediately, very first item trial. policy reasons its conclusion-that application force prosecutors abandon either instances where adequate "not [be] possible,'' id., 209, 1708, lead those results, provoke mistrials, because difficulty predicting, all evidence, barred particular incriminated "by connection,'' ibid.- inapplicable circumstances 344 Md. 417, 687 A.2d 660, vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., KENNEDY THOMAS, Arthur A. Delano, Jr., Baltimore, MD, Petitioner. Carmen M. Shepard, Respondent. Roy W. McLeese, III, Washington, DC, amicus curiae, special Court. Justice BREYER 1 issue case concerns 476 (1968). accused participating crime jury. One had confessed. His named defendant. issued instruction, telling Constitution forbids 2 us differs from prosecution substituting "deleted.'' We decide these substitutions hold they do 3 1993, Williams died severe beating. Baltimore City police, he (Bell), Jacquin "Tank'' Vanlandingham resulted died. A murder. 4 judge, denying motion separate into But ordered redacted. Consequently, Vanlandingham's jury, Mr. officer responded, "That's correct.'' App. 12. white spaces Appendix, infra. produced witnesses, six persons (including Vanlandingham) testified denied participation. testify. 5 instructing specified Bell; appealed. 6 accepted argument Md.App. 311, 667 983 (1995). 660 (1997). granted certiorari order replaces II 7 deciding applies us, we Bruton, case, 176 (1987), scope. shall briefly summarize each cases. 8 have said, defendants-Evans Bruton-tried robbery. Evans testify, Government Evans' stated (Evans) together committed 124, 1621. told Evans, Bruton. Id., 125, 1622. 9 out-of-court right, Amendment, 137, 1628. recognized many adequately protect prejudicial effects intended different 135, 10 "there vital practical human limitations system ignored. Such context presented stands side-by-side Not incriminations credibility inevitably suspect unreliability intolerably compounded alleged accomplice, testify tested cross-examination.'' 1628 (citations omitted). 11 found constituted just "powerfully statemen[t],'' insulated cross-examination, rights. 1627. 12 supra, murder Marsh Williams. Williams, "omit reference'' Marsh-"indeed, omit indication anyone than Williams'' person "participated crime.'' 203, 1705 (emphasis original). Marsh. 205, 1706. As redacted, indicated discussed front seat car while traveled victim's house. 203-204, n. 1, 1705, 1. contained no Marsh-or person-was car. Ibid. Later she back 204, 1705-1706. reason, context, still helped convince knew advance therefore knowingly crime. 13 fell admissible (with appropriate instructions) distinguished "incriminating face,'' "expressly implicat[ed]'' 1707. amounted "evidence requiring linkage'' "became'' respect 14 "that when, existence.'' 1709. 15 added: "We express admissibility been replaced neutral pronoun.'' 5, 5. III 16 Originally, like referred implicated State, removing Nonetheless, unlike "existence'' symbol, namely off example, responded question "Who group beat Stacey,'' phrase, "Me, , few guys.'' infra, __. And witness court, appear. left open, deletion, space, "deleted,'' similar rule. does. 17 interpreted Richardson, holds certain codefendant''-those naming defendant-considered work. 207, 1707; Unless wishes trials juries redact reduce significantly prejudice found. our view, law require result. 18 way, true soon finished reading statement. Consider simplified typical reads "I, Bob Smith, along Sam Jones, robbed bank.'' To words "Sam Jones'' likely fool anyone. juror somewhat familiar criminal know immediately blank, phrase bank,'' Jones. wonders whom might need lift eyes sitting counsel table, find what seem answer, least if hears judge's provide reason blank. more sophisticated juror, wondering someone else, wonder how, argue reliable, prosecutor, all, arguing Smith commit 19 That why Judge Learned Hand, years ago, wrote instance blacking "would futile [T]here slightest doubt whose blacked out,'' "even there been, itself laid doubt, underscored answer.'' Delli Paoli, 229 F.2d 319, 321 (C.A.2 1956), aff'd, 352 232, 77 294, 278 (1957), overruled Malinski New York, 324 401, 430, 65 781, 795, L.Ed. 1029 (1945) (Rutledge, dissenting) (describing substitution "X'' "Y'' redactions "devices perhaps emphasize identity purported conceal''). grammatically. accusatory. statement explicitly incriminating'' effect Stewart called "an accusation,'' 138, 1629 (Stewart, concurring), creates special, vital, cross-examination-a pointed courtroom itself. points accuses manner testifying accusatory finger. factual Richardson-a others car-differs respect, all. 21 concede differences between case. uses (or, matter, nickname) less full Moreover, clear: follow-up asked eliminated transparent cases present (or more) blanks, though appears indicates participants named. believe "delete,'' notify enough IV 22 contrary conclusion, relies heavily Richardson. controls inferentially. difference, shortened names, nicknames, descriptions "red-haired, bearded, one-eyed man-with-a-limp,'' Grinnell Corp., 384 563, 591, 86 1698, 1714, 778 (1966) (Fortas, dissenting), always known nickname. assumed, specific inside, outside, protection. 284 (1969) (assuming violation describe "white guy'' gives description age, height, weight, hair color). Solicitor General, although supporting concedes appropriate. Brief Amicus Curiae 18-19, 8. being so, prominent face, words, "facially incriminat[es]'' 1708 added). Like itself, accusation makes "is vivid inferential incrimination, hence difficult thrust mind.'' 24 Nor provided support conclusion applicable expressed concern lest apply "redaction'' confessions, particularly "confessions thereby forcing too 1708. Additional normally possible. example portion us: (among things) 25 "Question: Who Stacey? 26 "Answer: Me, deleted, 27 11. 28 Why instead, said: 29 30 Me 31 provides redaction. "redacted respondent-indeed, Martin crime,'' deleted), indicate cf. post, __ (SCALIA, (suggesting "never endorsed means shown''). 32 feared inclusion, rule, connection'' unnecessarily neither nor easily predict, until include symbols, protections, runs risk. Their identified prior depend, note several Circuits years, see, Garcia, 836 385 (C.A.8 1987); Clark Maggio, 737 471 (C.A.5 1984), yet difficulties arising administration 33 reasons, respondent's protections apply. 34 judgment Appeals vacated, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 35 It ordered. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT 36 [Typewritten Version Handwritten Redacted Statement, State's Exhibit 5B] 37 (REDACTED STATEMENT) 38 taken 1-4-94 0925 hrs small interview room. Statement Det. Pennington Ritz. 39 (Q) Is your 40 (A) Yes 41 Are old date Birth 6-17-74 42 43 Can write 44 45 under influence alcohol drugs 46 No 47 You Explanation Rights, fully understand 48 49 willing answer questions without attorney time 50 51 [Page -2-] 52 Has promised anything 53 54 What can tell me Stacey occurred November 1993 55 An broke 500 blk Louden Ave got smacked ran Wildwood Parkway. guys Stacey. caught up him up. up, walked I over phone. down 56 beaten Parkway, how 57 -3-] 58 Hit, kicked 59 hit 60 Stacey, don't 61 62 63 Do 64 (A), me, remember Did pick drop ground 66 there. 67 68 -4-] 69 Some money owed 70 How hitting 71 About 72 black jacket Park Heights 73 Yeh 74 else jacket. 75 76 sign William F. Ritz Homer 78 CHIEF JUSTICE, KENNEDY, THOMAS join, dissenting. 79 declined extend "narrow exception'' (1968), beyond facially Today "concede[s] inferentially,'' ante, __, defendant,'' nonetheless extends delete Because line drawn changed, respectfully dissent. 80 almost invariable assumption instructions. Francis Franklin, 307, 324-325, 105 1965, 1976-1977, 85 (1985). pragmatic one, rooted absolute certitude presumption belief represents reasonable accommodation interests state justice process.'' held, convictions purpose sentencing enhancement, elicited Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694 (1966), impeachment, long determining guilt. Spencer Texas, 554, 87 648, 606 (1967); Harris 401 222, 91 643, (1971). confessions: "a testimony "against' codefendant.'' 206, rule: deprived confrontation 81 evidence. incrimination inferential, "it valid generalization obey disregard evidence.'' struggles face On hand, asserts, "the incriminat[es]''' him, ibid. stopped concession: guys'' speaker. Court's analogizing physical clearly identifies (which covers, (1969)) survive scrutiny. incriminating,'' meant independent 208-209, Since appearance table incriminating-unless, course, dyed shaved beard concerning former appearance. Similarly, incriminating, unless forth indictment sometimes "Kevin Gray'' alias. apparent knows Though speculate, expressly implicates 82 Of course correct true-and relevant here-that it. latter 1621, 1627; so. Here, instance, five "speculate reference,'' speculates connects petitioner, "powerful'' depart normal follows 3, 1707, 3. think not-and am drawing departing ordinary facial identification sense anywhere else. 83 extension name-redacted "as class'' seriously compromise "society's compelling interest finding, convicting, punishing violate law.'' Moran Burbine, 475 412, 426, 106 1135, 1143, 410 (1986) (citation forgoing "too high'' price insure never 209-210, minimizes damage suggesting " [a]dditional "delete,' possible.'' asks, "Me guys''? Ante, seems said. Tank, Introducing disclosure deletions thing; introducing complete something concealed text job demands. inchoate offenses-conspiracy particular-redaction confederate render nonsensical. agreed Stacey?'', Kevin,'' [deleted],'' somebody else,'' surely "Me''-for longer conspiracy charge, rather foundation insanity defense. my knowledge endorsed-and strong ought endorse-the shown.1 integrity (not mention increase complexity) posed approval free-lance editing infinitely greater entirely honest reproduction disapproves. 84 guarantees, perfect (as considerable disagreement), minimum standard fairness. Lest lose sight forest trees, borne mind federal rules procedure-which afford seek perfection readily changed-exclude non-testifying-codefendant not. Under Federal Rules Criminal Procedure (and Maryland's), joinder Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 14; Md.Crim. 4-253(c) (1998). courts described term "prejudice'' "term art,'' "refers resulting reception inadmissible joinder.'' Ogonowski 173, 589 513, 520, cert. denied, 323 474, 593 1127 (1991). contemplates ruling severance inspect "in camera made government intends 14. most Maryland's) discretion exclude unfairly (albeit probative) Evid. 403; 5-403 moved prejudicial. motion, explaining others, participated, petitioner's "unavoidable inference'' (App. 8.) disagree unclear referred.2 applies, constitutionally admitted instruction. remains, insofar concerned, "reasonable affirm Maryland. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. mistaken suggest rewriting method There parties O.T.1986, 85-1433, pp. 100, 107-108, occasion address propriety showing nature editing. believe, "follow-up question''-"All now, officer, ("That's correct'')-" doubt'' subject probably certainly far clear. Testimony preceded already established become arrest, Respondent 26, 10. contends given background, prosecutor's imply connection making transition next piece arguable, poor position resolve contextual de novo. objections supposed -so judges, hear full, live determinations instance. bring home shows impropriety redaction-and objected to. object deprives complain incremental identifiability added answer. reliance belies contention class,''

Category: 0