Court Opinion

ID: 9497483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:52:15.648758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:13.103325
License: Public Domain

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur and make two observations. First, because the testimony given by Detective Nunn about Amar’s statement was untrue, this case does not fit neatly into the Bruton line of authorities. Even if we applied some other analytical framework to the issue of admissibility of the testimony, however, the result is clear. Admission of an inculpatory statement that was never made can hardly be said to jeopardize a defendant’s rights less than admission of one that was made.
Second, in concluding that the error in admitting the tape was not harmless, it is of particular importance that the tape was a portion of Nunn’s sworn state grand jury testimony. The jury, which had no basis for knowing that the testimony was false, would likely believe that such a statement, made: by a law enforcement officer testifying under oath, was entirely truthful. Moreover, the statement clearly refers -to Macias, although it does not use his name. For these reasons, the error was not harmless in my view, despite the quite substantial circumstantial evidence of guilt.