Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
What is this issue all about
Asked on June 9, 2009 under Criminal Law, Arizona
M.T.G., Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 12 years ago | Contributor
In Bruton, the Supreme Court held that a nontestifying codefendant's confession that directly inculpated another defendant by name could not be admitted at trial, and the Confrontation Clause (which gives the right of an accused in a criminal trial to confront witnesses) problem was not cured by a clear instruction to the jury to consider the statement only as evidence against the codefendant. In Bruton granted a new trial, finding error in the admission in a joint trial of a nontestifying codefendant's confession which directly implicated the defendant. The Court held this violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, even though the jury had been instructed not to consider the codefendant's statement on the issue of the defendant's own guilt. You need to see a lawyer as to how this applies in your case.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.