Richardson v. Marsh
- Decided
- April 21, 1987
- Docket
- 85-1433
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,670 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · In re J.D.
What later courts said
- holding that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession with a proper limiting instruction — Fall v. Indiana University Board of Trustees (1998)
- holding that Bruton does not categorically exclude confession that is incriminating “only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial” — United States v. Taylor (2014)
- holding that admission of a statement was not a Bruton violation where it "does not directly inculpate anyone" — United States v. Earlie Dickerson (2018)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), we held that a defendant is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his nontestifying codefendant’s confession naming him as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider [*202] that confession only against the codefendant. Today we consider whether Bruton requires the same result when the co-defendant’s confession is redacted to omit any reference to the defendant, but the defendant is nonetheless linked to the confession by evidence properly admitted against him at trial.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.