- Bruton v. US (US 1968) (p.190)
- E and B on trial for robbing a postal facility; E had made a statement, “B and I did it” – an admission which govt can use to prove E’s guilt; judge decided to admit statement with limiting instruction that it wasn’t to be considered as to B’s guilt
- B’s arg: limiting instruction isn’t enough – can’t trust jury in this situation
- holding: confrontation clause is offended by this evidence, should have been excluded
- other alternatives available to govt
- redact statement, to get rid of all reference to B’s involvement
- give up using the statement altogether
- have two separate trials, one for B and one for E
- have one trial with two juries (more efficient) – Δ-specific evidence will be heard by jury for that particular Δ.
Case briefs for law students, lawyers, and others researching case law. I created many of these briefs in law school and periodically update them from time to time. My goal has been to build a one stop resource center for law students!
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Bruton v. US case brief
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. Montana Case Brief: Key Takeaways for Law Students and Legal Researchers
Case Brief: Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. Montana, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016) Court Supreme Court of Montana Citation 368 P.3d 11...
-
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
-
https://www.pexels.com/photo/coworkers-talking-outside-4427818/ Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...
-
Small Business Tax Tips: Maximizing Deductions and Credits https://pixabay.com/photos/money-bills-calculator-to-save-256312/ Managing a sma...
No comments:
Post a Comment