Gray v. Maryland

1998-03-09

Headline: Redacting a co‑defendant’s confession with blanks or the word “deleted” is not enough; Court prohibits using such redactions against a non‑testifying defendant, limiting prosecutors in joint trials.

Holding: The Court held that replacing a co‑defendant’s name with blanks or the word “deleted” does not avoid Bruton protections, so such redacted confessions cannot be used against a non‑testifying codefendant in a joint trial.

Real World Impact:

Prevents using obvious name‑redactions against non‑testifying co‑defendants.
Requires prosecutors to seek separate trials or fully eliminate references to others.
Increases need for careful redaction or alternative evidence strategies.

Topics: confession redaction, joint criminal trials, right to cross‑examination, trial evidence rules

Summary

Background

A man named Anthony Bell gave a police statement saying he, Kevin Gray, and others beat Stacey Williams, who later died. The State tried Bell and Gray together, but the prosecution removed Gray’s and another name from the written confession, leaving blank spaces and sometimes saying the word “deleted” when reading it aloud. The jury was told the confession was evidence only against Bell, and both men were convicted. Maryland courts split over whether that redaction was allowed, and the case reached this Court to decide the legal rule.

Reasoning

The Court examined two earlier decisions: Bruton, which barred using a codefendant’s confession that names the defendant, and Richardson, which allowed a confession redacted so it made no reference to another person’s existence. The Court explained that blanks or the word “deleted” still signal that the confession names someone and therefore closely resemble the unredacted, directly accusatory statements Bruton condemned. Because jurors will often figure out the reference, a limiting instruction cannot reliably remove the prejudice. The Court therefore held that name‑redactions that leave an obvious blank or “deleted” fall within Bruton’s protection and cannot be used against the non‑testifying defendant.

Real world impact

After this decision, prosecutors who want to use a co‑defendant’s statement in a joint trial must either further redact so the statement does not indicate another person’s existence, hold separate trials, or avoid using that confession. The Court vacated the intermediate court judgment and sent the case back for proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia (joined by three others) dissented, arguing Richardson’s line should remain, that juries generally follow instructions, and that the redaction here did not facially incriminate Gray as a matter of law.