Court Opinion

ID: 9702728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:22:02.642575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:40.946917
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, C.J.
I respectfully dissent.1 The record in these cases reveals that a substantial risk *569exists that the jury considered the codefendants’ confessions when deciding each defendant’s guilt. Moreover, the error in admitting these confessions was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the mind of an average juror, indeed, would have found the prosecution’s case significantly less persuasive had the codefendants’ statements been excluded. Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
i
As the majority correctly recognizes, the analysis in these cases is governed by People v Banks, 438 Mich 408; 475 NW2d 769 (1991). While reasonable minds may differ on the application of Banks to these facts, they certainly cannot differ on the rule of law established in Banks.
In cases such as the one before us now, where redaction is achieved through replacement of the defendant’s name with a neutral pronoun or "blank,” the ease with which a jury will be able to fill in a blank will vary from case to case, depending upon the overall evidentiary .context in which it is introduced to the jury. . . .
We therefore return to the basic tenets of Bruton [v United States, 391 US 123; 88 S Ct 1620; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968)]. Because codefendant statements are "inevitably suspect” because of the strong potential for blame shifting, Bruton, supra, p 136, even redacted confessions like the one challenged here should be clothed with a presumption of unreliability. If a ’’substantial risk” exists that the jury, despite cautionary instructions, will consider a codefendant’s out-of-court statement in deciding the defendant’s guilt, the statement— even though redacted to delete the defendant’s name — will be rendered inadmissible at a joint trial. Other independent evidence may, by neces*570sity, have to be considered .... [Banks at 420-421. Emphasis added.]
The theoretical underpinning of Banks is the questionable reliability of codefendants’ confessions. When one person accuses another of a crime under circumstances in which the declarant stands to gain by inculpating others while at the same time exculpating himself, the accusation is presumptively unreliable and must be subject to cross-examination. Banks at 427-428. However, it seems that the majority today overlooks this presumption of unreliability and the corollary presumption against admissibility of such accusations in the absence of cross-examination.
A
The central issue in these cases is determining the ease with which the jury was able to fill in the "blanks” in the redacted statements, given the entire evidentiary context of the case. In determining this issue, it is incumbent on us to
carefulfly] examin[e] . . . the specific details disclosed in each codefendant’s statement and analy[ze] . . . whether the statement may have implicated any of the other defendants when the context of all the evidence introduced during the trial is taken into consideration. [Ante at 550.]
After conducting its examination of the redacted statements, the majority concludes that the jury could not have filled in "friends” or "my. three friends” with the defendants’ names. The "jury could have surmised that persons other than those on trial might have been the friend or friends referred to when considered in the context of the evidence” because so many gang members were *571named at trial. Ante at 542 (emphasis added). I agree that the jury could have believed that the "friends” referred to were persons other than the codefendants. However, given the entire evidentiary context of the trial, there is a substantial risk, bordering on virtual certainty, that the jury did conclude that a reference to "friend” or "my three friends” was a reference to a codefendant.
As the majority correctly notes, no less than twenty gang members, other than the four defendants, were named at trial. All of these were present in downtown Detroit at some point on August 29, 1985. It is important to remember, however, that the significant events of this crime did not occur during a twenty-four-hour period. They occurred within about a five- to ten-minute period sometime between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. In addition, most of the people mentioned at trial as being present at various times that day were excluded from being present at the critical moment when the victim was fatally shot.
For example, two of the prosecution’s primary gang witnesses established that, at most, there were eight to ten gang members present at Hart Plaza at the time of the shooting, and, of these, only the four defendants actively participated in the robbery and shooting. The first of these witnesses was Mary Walker, also known as "Mimi,” who gave the following testimony concerning the events that occurred just before the shooting:
[.Assistant Prosecutor Foley]: Who were you down there [Hart Plaza] with?
[Mary Walker]: Lacoya, Shawn and Omar, Neeta.
Q. I’m sorry, down with Lacoya and Shawn and Omar?
A. Yes.
*572Q. Omar Frazier?
A. Frazier.
Q. And Darnita?
A. Yes.
Q. And who else?
A. James and Chris.
Q. You mean Chris Phillips?
A. Yes.
Q. And James Robinson?
A. Yes.
Q. Was anyone talking?
A. Yes.
Q. And who was talking?
A. James.
Q. James was talking. What was he talking about?
A. Getting paid.
Q. Getting paid?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he [James] say something after that?
A. He asked was anybody going with him.
Q. All right. And what happened after he said that?
A. They left.
Q. Who left?
A. Chris, Omar and Darnita and James.
Q. Do you remember how James was dressed that day?
A. Yes.
Q. How was he dressed?
A. A white jogging suit.
Q. Was he carrying anything?
A. Yes.
Q. What was he carrying[?]
[A.] A Gouchi [sic] bag.
Q. A Gouchi bag. Was anything in the Gouchi bag?
A. I don’t know.
*573Q. All right. Did you se[e] them as they walked towards the boat?
A. I didn’t pay no attention then after they left.
Q. Now where were you at the time they walked towards the boat?
A. Sitting on the spiral [staircase].
Q. And who was with you there?
A. Shawn and Cocoa.
Q. Was anyone else with you?
A. Yeah, a fat girl; but I don’t remember her name.
Q. All right. And what happened after James and Chris and Darnita and Omar went towards the boat?
A. What happened?
Q. Yes, what was the next thing you remember happening?
A. They running back towards where we were sitting at.
Q. Had you heard anything before you saw them running back towards you?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you hear?
A. Just a little pop.
Q. After the pop did you see anyone?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you se[e]?
A. James and Chris.
Q. And what were they doing?
A. Running back towards where we were sitting.
Q. All right. Did they say anything?
A. They said let’s go.
Q. And what did you do?
A. We ran back towards the bus station, bus stop.
*574Q. Who else did you see get on the bus?
A. Shawn, James and Chris.
The prosecution then called Antoinette Simmons, also known as "Shawn.”
[Assistant Prosecutor Foley]: Did anyone have a gun at ány time that night?
[Antoinette Simmons]: Yes.
Q. Who had a gun?
A. James had a gun in the Gouchi bag.
Q. In a Gouchi bag?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see that gun?
A. Earlier that day, yes.
Q. Where did you go after you left there?
A. We started heading towards Hart Plaza.
Q. Was anyone else with you at this time?
A. No.
Q. Was James Robinson still with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Omar Frazier[?]
[A.] Yes.
Q. Was Chris Phillips still with you?
A. Yes.
Q. And Darnita McGhee?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Cocoa still with you?
A. Yes she was.
Q. And was Mimi still with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was Mimi, what is her name?
A. Mary Walker.
Q. Did you go into Hart Plaza?
A. Yes we did.
Q. Was there any discussion there what you were going to do?
*575A. Well James, Chris, Omar and Darnita was talking about getting paid that night, they was talking about robbing somebody from the Lands-down boat.
Q. All right. What did they do then?
A. We sit there for a minute and then I asked James where [he] was going and he said they was going towards, they was walking towards the Landsdown. I asked him can I go or we got into an argument and we had a little fight.
Q. What happened in that fight?
A. He slapped me and told I couldn’t go.
Q. You asked ... to go with h[i]m?
A. Yes I did.
Q. What happened after he slapped you and told you you couldn’t go?
A. They started going towards the boat and I sit there on the street by the spiral staircase.
Q. Who went down towards the Landsdown Restaurant?
A. James, Chris, Omar and Darnita.
Q. Who had the gun?
A. James still had it in the case.
Q. Do you mean you saw the gun or you saw the case?
A. I seen the case.
Q. James had the case?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the case in which you had seen the handle of the gun earlier, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you see after you saw James and Darnita and Omar and Chris Phillips walking towards the Landsdown Restaurant?
A. Wel[l] next thing I know James and Chris was walking ahead.
Q. Walking ahead where?
*576A. Ahead of Darnita and Omar and they was going towards the boat by like it was some [g]ames over there, the basketball game and the crank up, they was around going towards that way.
Q. You saw them walking that way?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what is the next thing you saw?
A. I seen Neeta going towar[d]s the water, then they come back up and when they come up it was a white couple in front of them.
Q. When you saw them they came up, where did you see them come up, can you point on the sketch where you saw them coming up?
A. They was coming up in here.
Q. Who was coming up in there?
A. James, Chris, Omar, Darnita and a white couple.
Q. Al[l] right. Where was James and Chris in relation to the white couple at that time?
A. They was behind him like he was a few feet behind them.
Q. All right. Where were Omar and Darnita at that time?
A. They was up in this area.
Q. Were they on the sidewalk?
A. Yes. Kitty-corner on the sidewalk. She was half on the grass and half on the sidewalk.
Q. Omar and Darnita were?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you see next?
[A.] Well I seen the white couple they split up a little bit and they walked up and all of a sudden the next thing I seen sparks come from the gün and everybody started running.
Q. What happen[e]d after you heard the shots?
A. Everybody just started running towards, towards, back towards the spiral staircase.
*577Q. All four of them started running?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened as they ran towards the spiral staircase?
A. Wel[l] when everybody got there James and Tony Quarles switched clothes.
Q. What do you mean switched clothes?
A. Tony Quarles had a jacket on and James had another, one on. He had a white track suit on and they changed jackets and everybody went towards the bus stop.
Q. . . . And what happened after you got to the bus stop?
A. Me, James and Chris got on the bus and went to his sisters house.
Q. To whose sisters house?
A. James sister.
Q. Did you go there directly?
A. Yes we did.
The testimony of both Simmons and Walker was impeached by various inconsistent statements they had previously made. Nevertheless, the substance of their testimony was confirmed by the redacted statements of the defendants themselves. Defendant McGhee noted in her statement to the police:
" 'When we got to Hart Plaza everyone kind of split up and walked around . . . . We all met up again at the spiral seats. [T]he talk again was about getting paid. One of my friends told Shawn, you go with them, indicating the girls. And Shawn got mad. There was me and Tony and Cocoa and Mimi and Shawn and three others. One of my friends got real mad and slapped Shawn because she wanted to be with him when they got paid. Cocoa started to calm Shawn down because she was hysterical. . . . One of my friends had a bag, I think it was a designer bag, but I don’t know if the gun was in the bag. ... I could see Cocoa, Shawn *578and Mimi near the spiral seats and Tony was further towards Ford Auditorium. . . . One of my friends yelled hook, everyone get the hell out of here. We were all running towards Jefferson. Tony and one of my friends changed coats. Tony gave my friend his blue Georgetown coat and my friend gave Tony his white Georgetown coat.’ ” [Ante at 556-557.]
Defendant Frazier’s statement contained the following comments:
" 'About 9:30 p.m., on August 29, 1985, I was [at] the Hart Plaza and met up with members of the Be Like gang around the spiral cement area. I met up with eight or nine other persons. One person had a Gucci bag I had sold him earlier and he had a blue steel revolver in the bag. . . . When we finally got to the boat restaurant there was six of us.’ ” [Ante at 558. Emphasis added.]
Similarly, in one of the statements that defendant Robinson made to the police he commented as follows:
" T got downtown around about nine in the morning. Around about four thirty or five, that’s when everybody started meeting up. It was Cocoa, Me, Bop, two girls, Cocoa and Shawn and two other friends. It was some more Be Like down there but they was just down there, it was just me, Cocoa, Shawn, Bop and three other friends. . . . Then we just kept walking towards the festival people had dulled off and by the time we got to the festival it was just four of us, three friends and me.’ ” [Ante at 561. Emphasis added.]
Another prosecution witness, Labron Moore, also known as "Bop,” testified that a large group of Be Like, perhaps as many as fifty, were downtown on the night in question. His testimony confirms, *579however, that before the murder the large group split into two or three smaller groups.
Thus, out of the twenty-odd gang members named at trial, at least three of the defendants, Walker, Simmons and Moore2 all agree that the group that actually was present at Hart Plaza that night consisted of considerably less than twenty people and probably consisted of no more than eight. Of those eight, Walker and Simmons named only the four defendants as participating in the crime.3
There is no doubt that these four defendants had many "friends,” several of whom were specifically named at trial. It is also true, with almost a million people living in Detroit, a reference to a "friend” theoretically could be anyone. However, in light of all the evidence and the testimony of Simmons, Walker, and the defendants themselves, it is obvious that the "three friends” the defendants spoke of in their confessions were the very same "friends” sitting alongside them at the defense table.
Also facilitating the ease with which the jury could fill in the blanks is the fact that when a defendant identified a nondefendant admittedly at Hart Plaza (i.e., Simmons, Walker, Cocoa, or Tony), that name was left . in. Thus, out of a possible eight, a studious juror could easily exclude the other named individuals, thereby leaving an ever-decreasing number of candidates for the appellation "friend” or "my three friends.” Moreover, before allowing the first redacted statement into evidence, the trial court issued the following instructions:_
*580"What I have ordered the prosecutor to do is to use a fancy lawyers phrase, redact, strike, scratch out. This is going to be done all afternoon.
"Any statement other than [what] is applicable to that individual, if they make any reference to any other names, I said strike it out. I don’t want you to guess or speculate, don’t consider or worry about it. This is utilized and designed to have you focus first of all whether or not they made the statement and also secondly only as it applies to that individual, if you believe they made the statement and how much of it they made.
"You are going to hear a phrase called my friend. There is [sic] a lot of different names. Don’t worry or speculate or my friends, plural if there are more than one person.
"Understand I meant to say this too, the names struck do not necessarily even reflect the individuals on trial . . . .” [Ante at 553, n 8.]
The logical conclusion to the trial court’s instruction is that although the names struck do not necessarily refer to the defendants, they may. By giving this instruction, the trial court virtually assured that the jurors would make the very connection that it was urging them not to make. This instruction must have inevitably aroused the jurors’ curiosity, curiosity that could only be satisfied by filling in the blanks created by the redactions. As I said in my concurrence in Banks:
When jurors — presented with a joint trial of several codefendants and a confession by one co-defendant which refers to one or more accomplices identified only as "blank” — are pointedly instructed not to consider that confession as evidence against the accomplices on trial with the confessor, it would be almost an insult to their intelligence to suppose that they would not deduce *581that the "blanks” are indeed the other defendants. [Banks at 434.]
B
If the situation for defendants Frazier, Phillips and McGhee was bad, defendant Robinson did not even enjoy a sporting chance that the jury would fail to make the connection the court urged it to avoid. Several nondefendant witnesses identified defendant Robinson as having a Gucci bag. All the codefendants’ statements referred to one of their "friends” as having a Gucci bag. Shawn Simmons also recounted in her testimony that she and Robinson had an argument and that Robinson slapped her. In defendant McGhee’s redacted statement she says that " '[o]ne of my friends got real mad and slapped Shawn ....’” Ante at 556.
To make matters worse, Robinson’s sister, Wanda Mainor, was impeached by a statement she made to the police. In that statement she said that Robinson lived with her in August of 1985 and that he came home late on the night of the murder and was very upset. Simmons testified that after the shooting, she, Robinson, and Phillips got on a bus and went to Robinson’s sister’s house. Phillips also testified: " 'my friend got off [the bus] and caught the Livernois bus to his sisters house.’ ” Ante at 560.
Furthermore, Simmons testified that Robinson changed coats with Tony Quarles and that Robinson was wearing a white coat. McGhee’s statement recounts that " 'Tony gave my friend his blue Georgetown coat and my friend gave Tony his white Georgetown coat.’ ” Ante at 557.
It takes a leap of faith to believe that the jury did not actually know, let alone that a substantial *582risk existed, that the "friend” with the sister, the one who carried the Gucci bag, the one who slapped Simmons and changed coats with Tony Quarles, was not James Robinson. And with one piece of the puzzle complete, it is simply a matter to determine who the other "friends” were. Once James Robinson is identified as a "friend,” that only leaves two other "friends” to be identified other than the maker of each particular statement.4
Having identified one "friend,” I think that the risk is very substantial that the jury considered all the codefendants’ statements when deciding each defendant’s guilt.
c
If at the close of the proofs there were any lingering doubts on the part of the jury regarding who the "friends” were in the redacted confessions, they were surely dispelled by the prosecutor’s closing arguments. In those closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly urged the jury to consider all the evidence, testimony, and redacted confessions as a whole.
Now Mr. Cripps [defense attorney] I guess [he] feels that Shawn Simmons is the heart of my case. I must respectfully disagree with him. The heart of my case are James Robinson, Christian Phillips, Omar Frazier and Darnita McGhee. And it is their own words, not someone else’s words but their own words .... It is their own words which put them in Hart Plaza at this event on August 29, 1985.
One of the counsel, I believe Miss O’Connell, mentioned that Mrs. Weatherhead did not place anyone on the spiral steps. That’s quite true.
*583In her testimony she said nothing about anyone being on the spiral steps. But again this is where the defendant’s [sic] themselves are the heart of the case and -the most damaging evidence against them is spoken by the defendant’s themselves.
Omar Frazier admits he met up with eight or nine of the Be Like’s [sic] in the spiral cement area.
So, it is the defendant’s themselves who establish the spiral seats as being the place and where the people were sitting.
But probably the best evidence of the truth of any part of Shawn Simmons statement is the testimony of other defendants and other witnesses. The defendants corroborate the same things that Shawn puts in her statement and puts in her testimony.
But when you look at all of the stor[i]es and fit them all together, all the important details, they match. They connect. They make a whole, a whole that tells the story.
The prosecutor, by vigorously constructing his case from the evidence established at trial, urged the jury to consider all the confessions as a whole. This is exactly the concern I voiced in my concurring opinion in Banks.
I note that Justice Griffin places special emphasis on the fact that the prosecutor’s closing argument tended to erode the effectiveness of the redaction. See ante, pp 423-427. I fully agree ... in this regard, but I would note that this tendency will inevitably exist in every joint trial with one or more superficially redacted co-defendant confessions, no matter how conscientious the prosecutor is. [Banks at 435. Emphasis added.]
*584I believe this case confirms that concern.
D
I conclude that a substantial risk exists that the jury considered the codefendants’ confessions when deciding each respective defendant’s guilt contrary to Banks. In my opinion, it could not have been any easier for the jury to correctly fill in the blanks with the names of the codefendants, given all the evidence adduced at trial. The record in this case makes it clear that the jury could have easily concluded that the word friend in a codefendant’s statement referred to another defendant, because the degree of inference was not sufficiently attenuated.
ii
Having concluded that there is a substantial risk that the jury considered the codefendants’ out-of-court statements in deciding each defendant’s guilt, Banks requires an inquiry into whether that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. An "error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” only when the properly admitted evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant’s admission is insignificant. Id. at 427. When making this determination, it is proper to consider whether the "average juror” would have found the prosecution’s case significantly less persuasive had the confessions been excluded. Id. at 430.5
*585I find it difficult to conclude that the error was harmless because the other evidence admitted against these defendants was not "overwhelming,” nor was the prejudicial effect of the confession "insignificant.” Most witnesses of the shooting reported seeing two or three black males fleeing Hart Plaza; no one got a good look at those fleeing. The victim’s companion testified that she and the victim were accosted by two black males, but that she could not positively identify any of the defendants as the two.
Simmons and Walker did positively identify the four defendants as the perpetrators. However, their testimony was so severely impeached that, in absence of defendants’ corroborating confessions, their testimony would have been virtually unbelievable. Thus, there were no credible eyewitness identifications of the perpetrators.
Furthermore, even though each statement was admissible against its maker, it must be remembered that no defendant admitted being the actual shooter. All that the defendants actually admitted was either that they were lookouts or that they just happened to be present at the time of the murder. The evidence of each individual’s guilt or the extent thereof was not, therefore, overwhelming when judged solely by their confessions. It becomes overwhelming only when all four statements are considered as a whole. When the statements are so considered, as the prosecutor urged during closing arguments, it is obvious that the four acted as a group and that one of the them actually shot Trooper Hutchins. Thus, all could be found guilty under the law of aiding and abetting regardless of who actually pulled the trigger.
*586It is clear that without the confessions, the prosecution’s case would have been "significantly less persuasive” in the mind of the average juror because the confessions were the primary evidence directly linking these defendants to this crime.6 Therefore, I cannot conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
in
After reviewing the entire record in these cases, I conclude that a substantial risk exists that the jury considered the codefendants’ confessions when deciding each defendant’s guilt. I also conclude that the error in admitting the confessions was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the mind of an average juror, indeed, would have found the prosecution’s case significantly less persuasive had the codefendants’ statements been excluded. Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Levin, J., concurred with Cavanagh, C.J._

 I have previously voiced my dissatisfaction with name-only redactions and the importance of the Confrontation Clause. See People v Banks, 438 Mich 408; 475 NW2d 769 (1991) (Cavanagh, C.J., concurring), and People v Watkins, 438 Mich 627; 475 NW2d 727 (1991) (lead opinion by Cavanagh, C.J.). Although I still believe in the correctness of those opinions, I see no need to reiterate those positions here.

 To the extent that Moore testified that the large group divided into smaller groups.

 Coincidentally, defendant McGhee’s statement places both Simmons and Walker at Hart Plaza, and defendant Robinson’s statement places Simmons there.

 Excluding Robinson’s own statement.

 See also Schneble v Florida, 405 US 427, 430; 92 S Ct 1056; 31 L Ed 2d 340 (1972):
In some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant’s admission is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear *585beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the admission was harmless error.

 I also note that all the statements, as evidentiary exhibits, were taken into the jury room during deliberations.