Bruton v. United States

1968-06-17

Headline: Court limits prosecutors’ use of a co-defendant’s confession at joint trials, overturns earlier rule, and reverses the conviction because jury instructions cannot protect the defendant’s right to cross-examine.

Holding: The Court held that admitting a codefendant’s out-of-court confession at a joint trial violated the defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, overruled Delli Paoli, and reversed the conviction.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for prosecutors to use a codefendant’s confession at joint trials.
May force separate trials or redaction when confessions implicate other defendants.
Requires courts to protect defendants’ cross-examination rights more strictly.

Topics: police confessions, right to cross-examine, joint criminal trials, trial evidence

Summary

Background

This case involved two men tried together for an armed postal robbery. A postal inspector testified that one man, Evans, orally confessed that he and the other man committed the robbery. The trial judge told jurors to consider Evans’ confession only against Evans and to disregard it when deciding the other man’s guilt. Evans’ conviction was later set aside and he was acquitted on retrial. The government’s use of Evans’ confession led the Supreme Court to review the case and earlier decisions allowing such jury instructions to cure the problem.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether jurors can be trusted to ignore a co-defendant’s out-of-court confession that incriminates another defendant when the confessor does not testify and cannot be cross-examined. The Court concluded the risk was substantial that jurors would rely on the confession despite instructions to the contrary. Relying on earlier cases about the right to cross-examine and recent rule changes, the Court held that admission of the confession violated the accused person’s right to confront witnesses. The Court therefore overruled the old rule (Delli Paoli) and reversed the conviction.

Real world impact

For people facing joint trials, prosecutors, and judges, the decision makes it much harder to put a co-defendant’s confession before a jury unless the confession can be safely redacted or the confessor testifies and is cross-examined. Prosecutors may need to delete or avoid using confessions that mention other defendants, try defendants separately, or seek rulings before trial about admissibility.

Dissents or concurrances

One justice dissented, arguing the jury could obey instructions and that the new rule would complicate joint trials; another justice concurred with the judgment.