Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1968

Bruton v. United States

391 U.S. 123 | 88 S. Ct. 1620 | 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 | 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1630

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a limiting instruction cannot cure the Confrontation Clause violation created when a nontestifying codefendant's confession directly incriminates a defendant at their joint trial.

Background

George Bruton and William Evans were jointly tried in federal district court for armed postal robbery. A postal inspector testified that Evans had confessed that he and Bruton committed the robbery. Evans did not testify, so Bruton could not cross-examine him. The trial judge instructed the jury that Evans' confession was evidence only against Evans and had to be disregarded in deciding Bruton's guilt.

Both defendants appealed. The Eighth Circuit reversed Evans' conviction because his confession had been improperly obtained and admitted against him, but affirmed Bruton's conviction under Delli Paoli v. United States. Delli Paoli had held that a limiting instruction could adequately protect a nonconfessing defendant from prejudice caused by a codefendant's incriminating confession. The Supreme Court granted review to reconsider that rule.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether admitting a nontestifying codefendant's confession that directly implicates the defendant at a joint trial violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right, even when the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the codefendant.

Holding

Yes. The admission of Evans' confession violated Bruton's right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, and the limiting instruction did not cure the constitutional violation.

Reasoning

The Confrontation Clause secures an accused's right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Evans' out-of-court confession directly accused Bruton of participating in the robbery, but Evans did not take the stand and was therefore unavailable for cross-examination. The confession thus added substantial, and potentially critical, weight to the prosecution's case against Bruton in a form Bruton could not test.

The risk of prejudice was especially severe because Evans' confession was actually introduced as evidence and was properly before the jury for the purpose of determining Evans' guilt. The jury was asked to accept the confession as true against Evans while somehow disregarding its equally direct accusation against Bruton. That task created a substantial risk that the jury would use the confession against Bruton despite the judge's instruction.

Douglas v. Alabama supported the result. There, the prosecution's reading of an alleged accomplice confession, coupled with the accomplice's refusal to answer questions, denied the defendant a meaningful opportunity for cross-examination. The danger was greater here because the inspector affirmatively testified that Evans had made the incriminating statements, making the accusation more likely to be accepted as true by the jury.

The Court rejected the premise of Delli Paoli that jurors can reliably compartmentalize a codefendant's direct accusation through a limiting instruction. Jackson v. Denno had already recognized that, in some settings, the practical limits of the jury system make it unrealistic to assume that jurors can disregard highly prejudicial confession evidence after hearing it. A codefendant's confession presents such a setting because it remains in the case against the declarant while directly implicating the nondeclarant.

The Court acknowledged that limiting instructions often suffice when inadmissible evidence enters a trial inadvertently or has comparatively slight prejudicial force. But a deliberately introduced, powerfully incriminating confession by an alleged accomplice who cannot be cross-examined is different. Such statements are both devastating and suspect because an accomplice may have a motive to shift blame; cross-examination is the constitutional safeguard designed to expose those weaknesses.

Issue #2

Whether Delli Paoli v. United States should continue to permit the use of limiting instructions to cure the admission of a codefendant's confession implicating a jointly tried defendant.

Holding

No. Delli Paoli was overruled because its reliance on limiting instructions was incompatible with the Confrontation Clause in this context.

Reasoning

Delli Paoli rested on the assumption that a clear instruction made it reasonably possible for jurors to ignore a confession's references to the nonconfessing codefendant. The Court concluded that this assumption was untenable where the confession directly and powerfully incriminates a defendant tried alongside the declarant.

Efficiency interests favoring joint trials—such as conserving resources, reducing inconvenience to witnesses, and avoiding delay—could not justify sacrificing the defendant's constitutional confrontation right. The prosecution had alternatives, including severance, exclusion of the confession, or practicable deletion of references to the codefendant.

Because the Court could not know whether this jury actually relied on Evans' statement, the constitutional defect did not depend on proof of actual jury misuse. It was enough that the procedure created a substantial threat to Bruton's confrontation right. In this setting, a limiting instruction had the same practical effect as no instruction at all.

Concurrences

Justice Black

Reasoning

Justice Black concurred in the result for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Delli Paoli. That earlier dissent had rejected the view that a jury instruction could erase from jurors' minds a codefendant's inadmissible accusation against another defendant.

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart joined the Court's opinion and agreed that Jackson v. Denno required overruling Delli Paoli, although he had disagreed with Jackson when it was decided. He accepted Jackson as controlling precedent.

Independently, Justice Stewart reasoned that the Confrontation Clause itself forbids reliance on cautionary instructions when a nontestifying codefendant's highly damaging out-of-court accusation is deliberately presented at a joint trial. Some hearsay is so damaging, suspect, and difficult to discount that jurors cannot realistically be expected to give it only the limited weight a judge directs.

Dissents

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White agreed that Evans' confession was inadmissible hearsay against Bruton, but maintained that the trial judge properly confined it to Evans through a clear limiting instruction. In his view, nothing in the record showed that the jury disobeyed that instruction, and the Court adopted an unnecessarily rigid constitutional rule by presuming that jurors could not follow it.

He distinguished Jackson v. Denno. A defendant's own confession is uniquely powerful evidence, and a coerced confession is excluded to vindicate constitutional values even when it may be true. Jurors may therefore struggle to disregard a defendant's own confession. By contrast, a codefendant's accusation is ordinary hearsay and is especially suspect because the codefendant may be motivated to shift blame. A jury can understand why that evidence is unreliable and can disregard it as instructed.

Justice White also emphasized the practical costs of the majority's rule. It would often require prosecutors to remove every direct or indirect reference to a codefendant from a confession, abandon use of the confession, or seek separate trials. Although he suggested that careful redaction and early admissibility rulings might reduce those problems, he believed the Court had needlessly impaired the efficiency and fairness advantages of joint trials.