CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay Exceptions re Statements
......Co-Defendant (Crim.) Admissions
.........Use: Sanitized Statements
 20 Cards On This Topic:
  • Admission of co-D's confession does not violate D's right of confrontation where co-D's confession redacted to omit any reference to D and limiting instruction given.
  • Harmless error to admit co-D's redacted confession where it duplicated other evidence, never mentioned D, and was focused on by neither DA nor defense at trial.
  • To avoid severance, stipulation required the redaction of co-D's statement as to 3-way conversation about the murder to avoid reference to D, but did not preclude sister's testimony that she set up the 3-way conversation.
  • No error in denying severance motion and admitting D1's redacted stmt omitting references to D2 where D1's role was not distorted and no exculpatory statement was rendered inculpatory.
  • Trial court correct in denying severance while redacting out-of-court statements D made to mental health experts; Court rejected argument that redactions created impression D was more culpable than coDs.
  • Harmless error to admit redacted stmts of coDs which, along with other evidence, led to obvious inference that D was "the other" who shot V.
  • No abuse of discretion in denying severance where redaction of coDs' and D's statements did not prejudicially undermined D's defense, and joint trial did not result in gross unfairness depriving D of a fair trial.
  • Even assuming it was error to admit D's stmts in redacted form and to restrict cross-exam as to redacted portions at joint trial, error harmless under any standard.
  • Admission of co-defendant's redacted confession, omitting all reference to nondeclarant defendant, does not violate Bruton rule; test is whether confession is facially incriminating to D.
  • Admission of coD's redacted confession violated D's confrontation rights; no bright line rule for all cases.
  • By striking W's testimony that referred 'to any persons other than the witness' and co-D, and fully admonishing jury, trial court effectively prevented violation of D's confrontation rights under Aranda/Bruton.
  • D2's recorded phone stmt to aunt that they got the "other dude," while possibly Aranda/Bruton error, harmless error where Ds' own recorded stmts to each other established D1's guilt.
  • Reversal required where reasonable likelihood that admission of co-D's redacted statement, and evidence, contributed to D's conviction and error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Editing of D’s custodial confession sufficient to prevent it from powerfully implicating co-D; its admission into evidence with limiting instruction did not violate co-D’s confrontation rights.
  • Whether use of neutral terms in place of D's name in admission by co-D violates Bruton must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  • Court properly excluded references to D contained in statements by co-D to protect D from being prejudiced by admissions of co-Ds.
  • Error to deny severance motion without thoroughly inquiring into content of "sanitized" statement to be offered against D or fully considering inherent prejudice to D in redacting statement.
  • Replacement of D's name with neutral reference permissible unless statement corroborates other evidence against D.
  • Co-D's "sanitized" statement which had incidental effect of linking D to crime admissible under Aranda.
  • Admission of co-D's confession does not violate D's right of confrontation if all parts implicating D are effectively deleted.


    •