Facts
- Maryland prosecuted Kevin Gray and Anthony Bell jointly for murder arising from a group beating that resulted in the victim’s death.
- Bell gave police a confession implicating himself, Gray, and a third participant.
- Bell did not testify at trial.
- The State introduced Bell’s confession through a detective, using a redaction that substituted the word “deleted” or “deletion” when Gray’s name (and the third participant’s name) appeared.
- The jury also received a written copy of the confession with the names removed, leaving obvious blanks.
- Immediately after the confession was read, the prosecutor elicited testimony that, after receiving Bell’s information, police were able to arrest Gray.
- The trial court instructed the jury to consider Bell’s confession only against Bell, not against Gray.
- The jury convicted both defendants.
Issues
- Whether the Confrontation Clause permits, at a joint trial, admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that replaces the defendant’s name with an obvious blank, symbol, or the word “deleted,” accompanied by a limiting instruction.
Decision
- The Supreme Court vacated the judgment upholding Gray’s conviction and remanded.
- The Court held that the redacted confession fell within Bruton’s prohibition because the substitution of obvious blanks or “deleted” was facially incriminating.
- The Court distinguished confessions redacted to remove not only the defendant’s name but any reference to the defendant’s existence, which may be admissible with a limiting instruction under Richardson v. Marsh.
Legal Principles
- The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause is violated when a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that facially incriminates the defendant is introduced at a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction.
- A redaction that uses obvious blanks, symbols, or words such as “deleted” in place of the defendant’s name is treated like an express identification because jurors will readily infer the missing name refers to the defendant on trial.
- A confession that becomes incriminating only when linked with other trial evidence may be admissible if redacted to eliminate any reference to the defendant’s existence and accompanied by an appropriate limiting instruction.
Conclusion
The Court held that, in joint trials, prosecutors may not introduce a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that replaces the defendant’s name with obvious placeholders like blanks or “deleted,” because such a confession remains facially incriminating and violates the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights notwithstanding limiting instructions.