Court Opinion

ID: 9714920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:49:03.791479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:29.683470
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur in result.
Defendant notes that the facts contained in Mercer Bray’s testimony parallel those found in co-defendant Taylor’s confession and that Bray named defendant as one of the participants in the robbery. Thus, he argues, his motion for a separate trial should have been granted since Taylor’s statement, taken in conjunction with Bray’s testimony, contained implicit references to him which could not be effectively deleted.
I do not think that an otherwise effective redaction, which was made in this case, becomes ineffective simply because the state introduces other evidence implicating defendant in the crime. Taylor’s confession, standing alone, did not connect defendant with the robbery. Therefore, the non-testifying co-defendant’s extrajudicial statement did not pose “a substantial threat to [defendant’s] right to confront the witnesses against him.” Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 at 137, 88 S.Ct. 1620, at 1628, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 at 485. The witness who did implicate defendant was available for full cross-examination. Furthermore, defendant’s argument has been addressed and rejected in United States v. Belle, (3d Cir. 1979) 593 F.2d 487, cert. denied, 442 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 2825, 61 L.Ed.2d 277, and in United States v. Knuckles (2d Cir. 1978) 581 F.2d 305, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 986, 99 S.Ct. 581, 58 L.Ed.2d 659.