BRUTON RULE
See also: CONFESSIONS; CONFRONTATION
STATEMENTS AGAINST INTEREST–Statements Against Penal Interest Offered by Prosecution
1. Generally
The Bruton Rule comes into play where two or more criminal defendants are being tried jointly.{footnote}This article will use the term “co-defendant” to refer to the hearsay declarant and “defendant” to refer to the accused whose Bruton rights are at issue.{/footnote} Where a co-defendant’s out-of-court statement is inadmissible against the defendant under the Confrontation Clause (§ 6(b)), that statement cannot be introduced in a joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to only consider the statement against the co-defendant. This rule, announced in Bruton v. United States,{footnote}391 U.S. 123 (1968).{/footnote} is based on the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. A limiting instruction is insufficient to cure the error.{footnote}Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 193 (1987).{/footnote} Bruton does not apply where the co-defendant testifies and is available for cross-examination.{footnote}Nelson v. O’Neil, 402 U.S. 622 (1971) (in joint trial, admission of evidence of codefendant-declarant’s oral confession does not violate confrontation rights of defendant, against whom declaration is not usable, if codefendant testifies and is subject to cross-examination).{/footnote} It has also been held inapplicable to bench trials.{footnote}United States v. Castro, 413 F.2d 891, 894-95 & n. 7 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 950 (1970); Rogers v. McMackin, 884 F.2d 252, 255-57 (6th Cir. 1989)., cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1061 (1990); United States ex rel. Faulisi v. Pinkney, 611 F.2d 176, 178 (7th Cir. 1979).
But see People v. Schmitt, 527 N.E.2d 384, 400 (Ill. Ct. App. 1988) (Bruton applied to bench trial), rev’d, 545 N.E.2d 665 (Ill. 1989).{/footnote}
The trial court may solve the Bruton problem by granting a severance before trial.{footnote}Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987).{/footnote} Alternatively, the trial court may have the co-defendant’s written statement redacted to remove any reference to the defendant and give a appropriate limiting instruction.{footnote}Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987); United States v. Benitez, 920 F.2d 1080, 1087 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Espinoza-Seanez, 5th Cir., 862 F.2d 526, 534 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Dady, 536 F.2d 675 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Strickland, 935 F.2d 822, 826 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 116 L. Ed. 2d 787, 112 S. Ct. 884 (1992); United States v. Enriquez-Estrada, 999 F.2d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Chatman, 994 F.2d 1510, 1513 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 L. Ed. 2d 185, 114 S. Ct. 230 (1993); United States v. Petit, 841 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988).
Blodgett v. State, 310 A.2d 628, 629 (Del. Supr.1973); State v. Gray, 687 A.2d 660 (Md. 1997).
But see United States v. Pickett, 6th Cir., 746 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (6th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226 (1985) (redaction not sufficient); United States v. Payne, 923 F.2d 595, 597 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1219 (1991) (same).{/footnote} This procedure is only allowed where the redacted statement is not on its face incriminating of the defendant.{footnote}Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987).{/footnote} So long as the redacted statement does not directly incriminate the defendant, it does not violate Bruton.{footnote}United States v. Chrismon, 965 F.2d 1465, 1472-73 (7th Cir. 1992).
State v. Gray, 687 A.2d 660 (Md. 1997). {/footnote} The redaction may be accomplished by substituing a neutral pronoun in place of the defendant’s name, such as "we",{footnote}United States v. Chrismon, 965 F.2d 1465, 1472-73 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1502 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 863 (1990).{/footnote} "they",{footnote}United States v. Chrismon, 965 F.2d 1465, 1472-73 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Donahue, 948 F.2d 438, 444 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1600 (1992).{/footnote} "everyone"{footnote}United States v. Donahue, 948 F.2d 438, 444 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1600 (1992).{/footnote} or "another person."{footnote}United States v. Strickland, 935 F.2d 822, 826 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 324 (1991).{/footnote} Where a witness is testifying as to oral statements made by the co-defendant, the testimony must not mention any statement referring to the defendant.{footnote}Illinois v. Lincoln, 510 N.E.2d 1026, 1029 (Ill. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 515 N.E.2d 120 (Ill. 1987). {/footnote}
The Bruton rule extends to the convictions or guilty pleas of non-testifying co-defendants. See CONVICTIONS: Co-Defendants; PLEADINGS AND PLEAS: Guilty Pleas.
2. Appeal
Violation of a defendant’s confrontation rights under the Bruton rule may be deemed harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt where the other evidence of guilt is overwhelming.{footnote}Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 (1969).{/footnote}