Court Opinion

ID: 9457350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:19:24.461762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:18.782996
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
The evidence against Samuel Ross, aside from the statement the admissibility of which is contested, does not seem to me to be “so overwhelming that * * * violation of Bruton was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt * * Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 1728, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). I agree with the district court judge that Horace Ross’s statement was not “powerfully incriminating” under the Bruton rule and my concurrence rests on that ground.