Court Opinion

ID: 9706652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:48:38.594761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.218124
License: Public Domain

Riley, J.
(dissenting). I do not doubt the sincerity to which the majority attaches the guarantees of the Confrontation Clause with the facts involved in the instant case. Nor do I reject the notion that the right to confront one’s accusers is one of the most important, if not the most important, aspect of a fair trial. However, I firmly believe that the majority errs in its analysis of Richardson v Marsh, 481 US 200; 107 S Ct 1702; 95 L Ed 2d 176 (1987), and therefore reached the erroneous conclusion that defendant’s confrontation rights were violated. In my opinion, the statements of codefen-dants Funches and Burley were not admitted "against” defendant, and therefore his confrontation rights were not violated. I respectfully dissent.
i
In Bruton v United States, 391 US 123; 88 S Ct 1620; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968), the United States Supreme Court held that the defendant was deprived of his confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment where, in a joint criminal trial, a *437nontestifying codefendant’s confession named the accused as a participant in a robbery. In assuming that the codefendant’s implicating confession was inadmissible against the accused, the Bruton Court centered upon the effectiveness of a limiting instruction and held that it was constitutionally insufficient to support Bruton’s conviction.
Two decades later in Richardson v Marsh, the Court considered another case where a codefen-dant’s confession was introduced as an admission against party interest in the accused’s joint criminal trial. However, the prosecutor redacted the name and all references to the accused’s participation in the criminal episode in the codefendant’s statement. The trial judge admitted the codefen-dant’s confession and instructed the jury, which ultimately convicted the accused under an aiding and abetting theory, to only consider the statement against the declarant. After her conviction was affirmed on appeal, and being denied habeas corpus relief in federal district court, the accused turned to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Richardson argued that the introduction of the codefendant’s confession violated her confrontation rights because the jury could infer from the evidence admitted at trial that she was the person to whom the codefendant referred to in his statement. Marsh v Richardson, 781 F2d 1201, 1213 (CA 6, 1986). The Court of Appeals agreed with her and held that Bruton requires a determination of whether there exists a "substantial risk that the jury would consider [a codefendant’s] statement in” light of all the other evidence admitted at trial. Id.
The United States Supreme Court granted cer-tiorari, reversed, and expressly rejected the Sixth Circuit’s "contextual implication” analysis. Instead, the Court adopted a "facially incriminating” *438standard to test confrontation challenges. 481 US 208. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has best summarized the "facially incriminating” test as follows:
"[Defendant's Bruton rights [are] violated . . . only if the statement, standing alone, would clearly inculpate him without introduction of further independent evidence.” United States v Wilkinson, 754 F2d 1427, 1435 (CA 2, [1985]), [as reaffirmed] in Richardson v Marsh, 481 US 200; 107 S Ct 1702; 95 L Ed 2d 176 (1987). [United States v Tutino, 883 F2d 1125, 1135 (CA 2, 1989).]
The Richardson decision makes it clear that the distinction between the facts of that case, and those of Bruton, control the decision whether a codefendant’s implicating statement is constitutionally acceptable.
In Bruton, the codefendant’s confession "expressly implicated]” the defendant as his accomplice. Thus, at the time that confession was introduced there was not the slightest doubt that it would prove "powerfully incriminating.” By contrast, in this case the confession was not incriminating on its face, and became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial (the defendant’s own testimony). [481 US 208. Citations omitted.]
In the instant case, the majority has adopted a Sixth Amendment confrontation analysis that is directly at odds with the holding of Richardson v Marsh. The majority assumes that the "facially incriminating” test is too difficult to apply because, in cases such as this one, a jury will be able to "fill in [the] blank[s].” Thus, under the majority’s proposed rule, a trial court would be required to *439determine, at the end of every joint criminal trial, where a codefendant’s statement is introduced "[i]f a 'substantial risk’ exists that the jury, despite cautionary instructions, will consider a codefen-dant’s out-of-court statement in deciding the defendant’s guilt . . . Ante, p 421.
In my opinion, the majority’s adoption of the "contextual implication” test is not only more difficult to apply than the "facially incriminating” test, but it defies the guarantees of the Confrontation Clause and clogs the wheels of criminal justice. Indeed, Justice Scalia offered two persuasive reasons why the "contextual implication” test should not be used in confrontation challenges. He first noted that
[t]he "contextual implication” doctrine articulated by the Court of Appeals would presumably require the trial judge to assess at the end of each trial whether, in light of all of the evidence, a nontesti-fying codefendant’s confession has been so "powerfully incriminating” that a new, separate trial is required for the defendant. This obviously lends itself to manipulation by the defense — and even without manipulation will result in numerous mistrials and appeals. [481 US 209.]
Justice Scalia’s observation is well taken. Any resourceful defense attorney would be able to manipulate the trial process by admitting evidence that possibly links a client with the omitted reference in the codefendant’s statement, thus defeating the purpose of having joint criminal trials and placing additional burdens on an already beleaguered criminal justice system.
Second, the majority implicitly assumes that a jury neither can comprehend nor follow a limiting instruction given by a trial judge to consider a statement only against the declarant, and not *440against the accused. Here again, Justice Scalia explained why this fear is misguided:
Where the necessity of such linkage is involved, it is a less valid generalization that the jury will not likely obey the instruction to disregard the evidence. Specific testimony that "the defendant helped me commit the crime” is more vivid than inferential incrimination, and hence more difficult to thrust out of mind. Moreover, with regard to such an explicit statement the only issue is, plain and simply, whether the jury can possibly be expected to forget it in assessing the defendant’s guilt; whereas with regard to inferential incrimination the judge’s instruction may well be successful in dissuading the jury from entering onto the path of inference in the first place, so that there is no incrimination to forget. In short, while it may not always be simple for the members of a jury to obey the instruction that they disregard an incriminating inference, there does not exist the overwhelming probability of their inability to do so that is the foundation of Bruton’s exception to the general rule. [481 US 208.]
The assumption that jurors are able to follow a trial judge’s instructions fully applies when rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause are at issue. Tennessee v Street, 471 US 409, 415, n 6; 105 S Ct 2078; 85 L Ed 2d 425 (1985) (quoting Frazier v Cupp, 394 US 731, 735; 89 S Ct 1420; 22 L Ed 2d 684 [1969]). The question in this case, as in Bruton, therefore becomes whether we may rely on this assumption that the jurors followed the instructions given them by the trial judge. In my opinion, the record supports the presumption that the jurors in the instant case followed the trial judge’s instructions and convicted the defendant on the basis of the evidence admitted at trial, without the benefit of the codefendants’ statements.
It is evident that the trial judge was very con*441cerned with selecting an impartial and fair jury. He first had all of the witnesses involved sequestered from the courtroom, and then allowed the attorneys to conduct voir dire, which spanned three days, and dismissed just about every person who did not want to be on the jury. The prosecutor, in conducting his voir dire, was the first person to ask the jurors if they could consider a statement individually with regard to each defendant, and repeated the theme two other times. Codefendant Funches’ attorney also asked the question once, and Banks’ defense counsel asked the question five times. Upon their selection as jurors, they were sworn under oath to uphold the law given them.
Before the trial commenced, the trial judge made sure the witnesses were sequestered and instructed the jury to consider the codefendants’ statements only against the declarant. Thus, even before this trial began, the jury was instructed ten times to consider a statement individually with regard to each defendant.
The prosecutor again emphasized the limited nature of the statements in his opening remarks. He informed the jury that he would be introducing statements made by both codefendants Burley and Funches, but again cautioned the jury to only consider the use of a statement against each de-clarant. Before the introduction of Burley’s statement, the prosecutor asked the trial judge to instruct the jury to consider the statement only against the declarant, which he did, and the same was done when Funches’ statement was introduced. During closing arguments, the prosecutor again cautioned the jury to consider the evidence individually with regard to each defendant, and then went through all the evidence, not just the statements, and concluded that it was defendant who did the shooting and Burley and Funches who *442participated as aiders and abettors.1 After the defense closed and the prosecutor completed his rebuttal, the trial court instructed the jury, for a fourth time, about how it should use the statements.
Under these circumstances, there is no sound reason why the majority should apply the Bruton exception rather than the rule. The undeniable fact of the matter is that the acquittal of both Flinches and Burley is proof positive that the jury did follow its instructions and did compartmentalize the evidence regarding each of the defendants. So too, there exists no "overwhelming probability” that the jury disregarded its limiting instructions when deliberating on defendant’s case, and therefore, he was not denied the opportunity to confront the witnesses "against him.”
Can it be that a majority of this Court no longer believes that the cornerstone of our adversarial trial system is the notion that a jury will follow the instructions given to them? I would presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions, and, in this case, I believe they did.
ii
In addressing the issue the Court decides today, *443I would utilize the "facially incriminating” confrontation analysis adopted in Richardson v Marsh. That is, in determining if defendant’s Bru-ton rights are violated, examine the declarant’s statement, standing alone, and decide whether it clearly inculpates the accused without the introduction of other properly admitted evidence. Richardson requires nothing less.
The statements of Funches and Burley were admitted as admissions against a party-opponent under MRE 801(d)(2), and not "against” the defendant.2 To insure that the jury would follow the trial judge’s limiting instructions, the statements were redacted to exclude all direct references to defendant by name and description. There is no dispute that the redacted statements were not "powerfully incriminating” of defendant on their face.
To illustrate, if the jury had been sent to deliberate on defendant’s case after having heard only the redacted statements of Funches or Burley, or both for that matter, it could have only arrived at a verdict of not guilty. Obviously then, some meaning had to be given to each respective statement before it could have had meaning and become incriminatory of defendant. I believe that where such "linkage” is involved, there does not exist an "overwhelming probability” that a jury will not be able to disregard incriminating inferences. This is the foundation of Bruton’s narrow exception.
Federal courts have not encountered any difficulty in applying the "facially incriminating” test in Sixth Amendment confrontation challenges. Even before Richardson was decided, most of the *444federal appellate courts held that a statement, made by one defendant that is not inculpatory of a codefendant on its face, is admissible in a joint criminal trial (when the trial judge instructs the jury to consider the statement only against the declarant), even though other evidence in the case indicates that a codefendant not mentioned in the statement was also involved in the activities described. See, generally, United States ex rel Cole v Lane, 752 F2d 1210, 1216 (CA 7, 1985); United States v Belle, 593 F2d 487, 493 (CA 3, 1979); United States v Stewart, 579 F2d 356 (CA 5, 1978); United States v Brown, 551 F2d 639, 647 (CA 5, 1977), rev’d on other grounds 569 F2d 236 (CA 5, 1978); United States v Dady, 536 F2d 675 (CA 6, 1976); United States v Hicks, 524 F2d 1001 (CA 5, 1975); United States v Trudo, 449 F2d 649, 652-653 (CA 2, 1971); Slawek v United States, 413 F2d 957, 960-964 (CA 8, 1969).
Moreover, after Richardson was decided, the federal appellate courts have applied the "facially incriminating” test with relative ease. See, for example, United States v Kendrick, 853 F2d 492, 496, n 3 (CA 6, 1988); United States v Coppola, 788 F2d 303 (CA 5, 1986); United States v Burke, 700 F2d 70, 85 (CA 2, 1983).
The facts in the instant case fit into one category not addressed in Richardson, that is, when the names and references to a codefendant are redacted and replaced by neutral pronouns, with no indication to the jury that the original statement contained the codefendants’ names, and where the statement, standing alone, does not otherwise connect the codefendant to the crimes.
In the leading federal circuits, the general rule afforded in these cases is that a redacted statement in which the names of codefendants are replaced by neutral pronouns, with no indication *445to the jury that the original statement contained actual names, and where the statement, standing alone does not otherwise connect the codefendants to the crimes, may be admitted without violating a codefendant’s Bruton rights. See, generally, United States v Tutino, supra, 1135 (names and references were replaced by the words "others,” "other people,” and "another person”); United States v Briscoe, 896 F2d 1476, 1501-1502 (CA 7, 1990) (names and references replaced with the word "we”); United States v Alvarado, 882 F2d 645, 652 (CA 2, 1989) (name and reference replaced with the words "another person”); United States v Benitez, 920 F2d 1080, 1087 (CA 2, 1990) (name and reference replaced by the word "friend”).
I believe that Funches’ and Burley’s statements were sufficiently redacted to omit the names and references to the defendant. Their statements, standing alone, do not implicate defendant in the shooting death of Leonard Ingram and the injury of Larry Jordan. I would hold that the guarantees of confrontation have been met, and therefore, defendant’s Bruton challenge has failed.
in
I also believe that the majority erred in its harmless error analysis. In my opinion, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the jury verdict. The evidence brought out at trial, notwithstanding Funches’ and Burley’s statements, clearly indicate that defendant shot and killed Ingram and injured Jordan.
Larry Jordan testified that he, along with Sean Davis and Larry Harris, were with Leonard Ingram when defendant shot him. Jordan put defendant in the car driven by codefendant Burley and described the first time he saw defendant that day. *446He also described the clothes defendant wore and the words defendant used before he killed Ingram. Jordan also testified that defendant shot him in the leg and that he identified defendant in a photo identification before defendant’s arrest. This testimony is consistent with the testimony of the other two eyewitnesses to the shooting, Sean Davis and Larry Harris.3
Tony Ulmer, a thirteen-year-old neighborhood boy, testified that he was sitting in his house when he heard four shots being fired. He told the jury that he did not see the shooter’s face, but he did see him running away and described the clothing that he wore. The clothing matched the description given by Jordan of the items defendant wore on the day in question. Jerry Pringle testified that he was in the car with Funches and Burley, as well as Marty William. He also testified that he was the last person dropped off, leaving defendant, Funches, and Burley remaining. Dawn Brookins, who was Burley’s girl friend at the time of the shooting, testified that defendant was in the car on the day in question. Bryant Berry, the person who was probably the target of the shooting, testified that he saw defendant in Burley’s car and that he was later kicked out of high school for carrying a gun.
Defendant presented his witnesses and an alibi defense. He testified that he was not wearing the clothes described by the eyewitnesses and was not in the vicinity of the shooting at the time it *447occurred, and that the people who placed him in Burley’s car were mistaken.
In sum, three witnesses testified that they saw defendant kill Ingram and shoot Jordan. One testified that he saw defendant running from the scene. Five witnesses placed defendant in Burley’s car at the time of the shooting. Defendant’s alibi defense was so weak that a reasonable jury would reach the same conclusion as the one in the instant case and disbelieve him. Given these overwhelming facts, I would apply the harmless error rule and affirm the defendant’s conviction.
IV. CONCLUSION
The majority’s "contextual implication” analysis disregards the fact that jurors are law-abiding men and women who consciously strive to uphold and apply the law as given. The. meticulous jury selection process here, which spanned three days, insured that those jurors selected were most capable of faithfully following the law given them and able to compartmentalize the evidence with regard to each defendant. If we are to follow the rule that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions, I believe that after being told fifteen times that they are to consider the statements individually, they will — and in this case, they did.
Boyle, J., concurred with Riley, J.

 In Richardson, the prosecutor sought to undo the effect of the limiting instruction, in his closing argument, by urging the jury to use the codefendant’s confession in evaluating the respondent’s case. 481 US 211. The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to consider whether, in light of the respondent’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s comments, the error could serve as the basis for granting habeas corpus. Id.
In the instant case, the majority assumes that the prosecutor also urged the jury to evaluate defendant’s case in light of Funches’ and Burley’s statements, "thereby effectively undoing the trial court’s cautionary instructions.” Ante, p 424. This assumption is misplaced. The quotation that the majority has taken out of the prosecutor’s closing argument was his theory of what happened on the day in question. He never urged the jury to consider the codefendants’ statements against defendant, nor did he undo the effect of the trial court’s limiting instructions.

 The statements of Funches and Burley cannot be categorized as a declaration against penal interest, because the statements were not against the declarant’s penal interest when made.

 It is important to note that all three witnesses put defendant in the car driven by the codefendant, described the clothing that defendant wore on the day of the shooting, identified defendant as the shooter, and repeated the words spoken by defendant before he killed Ingram and injured Jordan.
There was no testimony elicited at trial that Ingram, Jordan, Harris, or Davis were part of the same "rival gang” as the majority has assumed. See ante, pp 429-430.