Jan. 9 – EvidenceProf Blog
Professor Colin Miller authored blog post
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment states that
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him…
Under the Bruton doctrine, the Confrontation Clause is violated, when, at a joint jury trial, the prosecution admits the statement of a non-testifying co-defendant that facially incriminates another defendant. But what if the court redacts the statement and replaces the other defendant’s name with a neutral pronoun? As I have noted in prior posts (see, e.g., here), several courts have started to find that such a procedure does not violate the Bruton doctrine. The recent opinion of the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Glisson, 2012 WL 19667 (4th Cir. 2012), reveals that the Fourth Circuit is among their ranks.
Read more: Staying Neutral: 4th Circuit Finds Neutral Pronoun Substitution Satisfied Bruton Doctrine
