Roberts v. Russell

Background

The case involves a man convicted of armed robbery after a joint trial with another person, Rappe, in Tennessee. A police officer testified that Rappe told him that both Rappe and the defendant committed the robbery. The trial judge told the jury that Rappe’s confession could be used against Rappe but must be ignored when deciding the other man’s guilt. State courts upheld the conviction, and a federal court later denied relief relying on an older rule called Delli Paoli.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Bruton — which says a codefendant’s out-of-court confession that implicates another defendant cannot be admitted at a joint trial even with jury instructions — must apply to cases decided before Bruton. The Court said yes: the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination (the right to confront witnesses against you) applies to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, and admitting such a confession creates a serious flaw that jury instructions cannot reliably fix. Because that error affects the fairness of trial outcomes, Bruton’s rule must be applied retroactively here, overturning the earlier reliance on Delli Paoli.

Real world impact

The decision means people convicted after joint trials where a codefendant’s confession implicated them can seek review under Bruton. Courts cannot rely on jury instructions alone to cure the harm from such admissions. The Supreme Court vacated the appeals court judgment and sent the case back to the federal trial court to reconsider the claim in light of Bruton.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black agreed with retroactive application but gave different reasons; Justices Harlan and White dissented, repeating concerns they expressed earlier about Bruton.