Richardson v. Marsh

1987-04-21

Headline: Limits Bruton by allowing redacted co-defendant confessions at joint trials, easing prosecutors’ use of edited statements while potentially affecting defendants in multi-defendant cases.

Holding: The Court held that a redacted co-defendant confession omitting any reference to the defendant may be admitted with a limiting instruction and does not violate the right to confront witnesses absent prosecutorial urging.

Real World Impact:

Makes it easier for prosecutors to use redacted confessions at joint trials.
Increases likelihood of admitting edited statements in multi-defendant cases.
Raises risk if prosecutors link redactions to a defendant without objection.

Topics: right to confront witnesses, codefendant confessions, joint criminal trials, prosecutor remarks

Summary

Background

A woman on trial with a co-defendant was charged with robbery, assault, and two murders. The co-defendant gave a police confession that was edited to remove any reference to her. The trial judge admitted the redacted confession with a jury instruction that it be used only against the co-defendant. The woman testified and the prosecutor later tied parts of the confession to her testimony in closing argument. She was convicted and the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding the confession was too incriminating when viewed with other evidence.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Bruton rule — which bars admitting a codefendant’s confession that names the defendant — extends to confessions that do not name the defendant but become incriminating when linked to other evidence. The majority said there is an important difference between confessions that are incriminating on their face and those that require later linkage. Redaction that removes any reference to the defendant, coupled with a proper limiting instruction, generally satisfies the right to confront witnesses. Extending Bruton to cover indirect linkage would force many mistrials, hamper joint trials, and be unpredictable. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and remanded to consider whether the prosecutor’s closing argument and the defendant’s failure to object affect relief.

Real world impact

After this ruling, prosecutors may more readily introduce redacted confessions at joint trials. Defendants in multi-defendant cases risk prejudice if prosecutors later highlight links to the redaction. The case was sent back for further review of the prosecutor’s closing comments and waiver issues.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissent (three Justices) argued Bruton should cover any confession that is “powerfully incriminating,” even if identity is omitted, warning of unfair jury inference and urging stricter protection for defendants.