Criminal Procedure — Confrontation Clause

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure — Confrontation Clause

Where none of the co-defendant’s statements directly incriminated the defendant, their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

“Despite Javell’s repeated arguments to the contrary, not one of the cases above support his position that the government’s Bruton statement violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Each of the aforementioned cases dealt with redacted confessions which facially incriminated or indirectly implicated the defendant. The fact remains that in Javell’s case, nothing in the government’s Bruton statement was facially incriminating, nor did any part of the statement even reference Javell indirectly, as for instance in Greene, by redacting and replacing his name with a more innocuous phrase. Instead, any reference to Javell or Bell Capital that was not already redacted by the government, was redacted by the district court at the Bruton hearing.”

Affirmed.

11-3044 U.S. v. Javell

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Darrah, J., Bauer, J.

Full Text