Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schneble v. Floridagreen2 sentences2001See Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687 ; Hernandez , 726 S.W.2d at 57 ; see also Schneble v. Florida , 405 U.S. 427, 430-32 (1972) ( Bruton error held harmless). 2001See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Hernandez, 726 S.W.2d at 57 ; see also Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 430-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) {Bruton error held harmless). | 3 | 7 |
Pointer v. Texasgreen2 sentences1989Pope v. Illinois, supra, at 502-503, 107 S.Ct., at 1922 , 95 L.Ed.2d, at 447 . [7] See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (denial of rights under Confrontation Clause of Sixth Amendment made applicable to states through Due Process Clause of Fourteenth by Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). [8] Schneble v. Florida, supra, like Harrington , is a Bruton violation, and at 430-432, 92 S.Ct., at 1059-1060, for the majority (Chief) Justice Rehnquist closely tracks the analysis previously made by Justice Douglas in Harrin 1989Pope v. Illinois, supra, at 502-503, 107 S.Ct., at 1922 , 95 L.Ed.2d, at 447 . [7] See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (denial of rights under Confrontation Clause of Sixth Amendment made applicable to states through Due Process Clause of Fourteenth by Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). [8] Schneble v. Florida, supra, like Harrington , is a Bruton violation, and at 430-432, 92 S.Ct., at 1059-1060, for the majority (Chief) Justice Rehnquist closely tracks the analysis previously made by Justice Douglas in Harrin | 3 | 4 |
Harrington v. Californiared2 sentences2003See Harrington v. California , 395 U.S. 250, 254 (1969) (finding Bruton violation to be harmless error); Chavez v. State , 6 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. ref’d ) (same); Wilson , 948 S.W.2d at 30 (same). 1989The two nontestifying confessors placed him at the scene of the crime but did not put a gun in his hand; their evidence was characterized by Justice Douglas as “cumulative.” Id., at 251-254, 89 S.Ct., at 1727-1729 , 23 L.Ed.2d, at 286-287 . | 2 | 7 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2001See Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687 ; Hernandez , 726 S.W.2d at 57 ; see also Schneble v. Florida , 405 U.S. 427, 430-32 (1972) ( Bruton error held harmless). 2001See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Hernandez, 726 S.W.2d at 57 ; see also Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 430-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) {Bruton error held harmless). | 2 | 2 |
Bruton v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007In response to that proposition, the State argues that 1) appellant waived any complaint about the admission of Steven's statement, 2) Steven's statement was merely cumulative, and 3) a " Bruton error may not occur when both [defendants'] statements are entered." In Bruton , the United States Supreme Court held that the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's statements incriminating the defendant violates the defendant's sixth amendment right of confrontation. 391 U.S. at 126 . 1999See Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123, 135-36 (1968) (defendant's confrontation right violated by admission at joint trial of nontestifying codefendant's confession that incriminates both defendants); Richardson v. Marsh , 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987) ( Bruton error avoided by redacting codefendant's confession to remove references to defendant). | 1 | 5 |
Griffin v. Stategreen2 sentences1976NOTES [1] It is observed that in Griffin v. State, 486 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), it was held that there was no Bruton error where all references to the defendant in the co-defendant's confession were deleted before such confession was introduced into evidence. 1976It is observed that in Griffin v. State, 486 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), it was held that there was no Bruton error where all references to the defendant in the co-defendant’s confession were deleted before such confession was introduced into evidence. | 1 | 2 |
Thacker v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Thacker v. State, 999 S.W.2d 56, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (appellant did not preserve Bruton error where objection at trial related to inadmissible hearsay); see also Thomas v. State, 916 S.W.2d 578, 580 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no 2 At submission, Mitchell’s counsel confirmed she does not contend a Crawford objection to admissibility of evidence preserves a Bruton objection to admissibility of the evidence. –15– pet.) (a “trial objection stating one legal basis may not be used to support a different legal theory on appeal”). 2013See Thacker v. State, 999 S.W.2d 56, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (appellant did not preserve Bruton error where objection at trial related to inadmissible hearsay); see also Thomas v. State, 916 S.W.2d 578, 580 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no 2 At submission, Mitchell’s counsel confirmed she does not contend a Crawford objection to admissibility of evidence preserves a Bruton objection to admissibility of the evidence. –15– pet.) (a “trial objection stating one legal basis may not be used to support a different legal theory on appeal”). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Thacker v. State, 999 S.W.2d 56, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (appellant did not preserve Bruton error where objection at trial related to inadmissible hearsay); see also Thomas v. State, 916 S.W.2d 578, 580 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no 2 At submission, Mitchell’s counsel confirmed she does not contend a Crawford objection to admissibility of evidence preserves a Bruton objection to admissibility of the evidence. –15– pet.) (a “trial objection stating one legal basis may not be used to support a different legal theory on appeal”). 2013See Thacker v. State, 999 S.W.2d 56, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (appellant did not preserve Bruton error where objection at trial related to inadmissible hearsay); see also Thomas v. State, 916 S.W.2d 578, 580 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no 2 At submission, Mitchell’s counsel confirmed she does not contend a Crawford objection to admissibility of evidence preserves a Bruton objection to admissibility of the evidence. –15– pet.) (a “trial objection stating one legal basis may not be used to support a different legal theory on appeal”). | 1 | 1 |
Chavez v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Harrington v. California , 395 U.S. 250, 254 (1969) (finding Bruton violation to be harmless error); Chavez v. State , 6 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. ref’d ) (same); Wilson , 948 S.W.2d at 30 (same). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Harrington v. California , 395 U.S. 250, 254 (1969) (finding Bruton violation to be harmless error); Chavez v. State , 6 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. ref’d ) (same); Wilson , 948 S.W.2d at 30 (same). | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Marshgreen2 sentences1999See Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123, 135-36 (1968) (defendant's confrontation right violated by admission at joint trial of nontestifying codefendant's confession that incriminates both defendants); Richardson v. Marsh , 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987) ( Bruton error avoided by redacting codefendant's confession to remove references to defendant). 1999See Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123, 135-36 (1968) (defendant's confrontation right violated by admission at joint trial of nontestifying codefendant's confession that incriminates both defendants); Richardson v. Marsh , 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987) ( Bruton error avoided by redacting codefendant's confession to remove references to defendant). | 1 | 1 |
Wilder v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Schneble v. Florida , 405 U.S. 427, 430 (1972); Wilder v. State , 583 S.W.2d 349, 357-58 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Eckert v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Three months later and also following Harrington , in Milton v. Wainwright, supra, Chief Justice Burger, obviously distressed by yet another collateral attack on a fourteen year old conviction, gave Milton such short shrift that Justice Stewart and three others protested his turning the back of the Supreme Court on a forty year old landmark constitutional precedent "[u]nder the guise of finding `harmless error.'" Id., at 378, 92 S.Ct., at 2178, 33 L.Ed.2d, at 7 . [9] Earlier the Court had agreed that "the Sixth Amendment notice requirement set out in Estelle v. Smith was not met[,]" id., at 25 1989Three months later and also following Harrington , in Milton v. Wainwright, supra, Chief Justice Burger, obviously distressed by yet another collateral attack on a fourteen year old conviction, gave Milton such short shrift that Justice Stewart and three others protested his turning the back of the Supreme Court on a forty year old landmark constitutional precedent "[u]nder the guise of finding `harmless error.'" Id., at 378, 92 S.Ct., at 2178, 33 L.Ed.2d, at 7 . [9] Earlier the Court had agreed that "the Sixth Amendment notice requirement set out in Estelle v. Smith was not met[,]" id., at 25 | 1 | 1 |
Livingston v. Stategreen2 sentences1979See Livingston v. State, 531 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Threadgill v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 157 , 239 S.W.2d 813 (1951). 1979See Livingston v. State, 531 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences1978Similarly, in Moore v. State, 504 S.W.2d 904, 905, n. 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), we considered the Bruton question as unassigned error and again concluded that the failure to request a severance was one factor in determining that the error was harmless. *794 The case at bar squarely presents the question of whether opposition to the State’s request for a severance waives a denial of confrontation clause rights. 1978Similarly, in Moore v. State, 504 S.W.2d 904, 905, n. 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), we considered the Bruton question as unassigned error and again concluded that the failure to request a severance was one factor in determining that the error was harmless. *794 The case at bar squarely presents the question of whether opposition to the State’s request for a severance waives a denial of confrontation clause rights. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Smithgreen2 sentences1976See also Ex parte Smith, supra; Carey v. State, supra. * * sfc * ⅜ * “. . . in Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972), the court further said: ‘The mere finding of a violation of the Bruton rule in the course of the trial, however, does not automatically require reversal of the ensuing criminal conviction. 1976See also Ex parte Smith, supra; Carey v. State, supra. * * sfc * ⅜ * “. . . in Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972), the court further said: ‘The mere finding of a violation of the Bruton rule in the course of the trial, however, does not automatically require reversal of the ensuing criminal conviction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. State
green
2 sentences2001See Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687 ; Hernandez , 726 S.W.2d at 57 ; see also Schneble v. Florida , 405 U.S. 427, 430-32 (1972) ( Bruton error held harmless). 2001See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Hernandez, 726 S.W.2d at 57 ; see also Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 430-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) {Bruton error held harmless). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Brown v. United States
green
2 sentences1976Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). 1976Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). | 2 | 1975–1976 |
Satterwhite v. Texas
green
2 sentences1989Three months later and also following Harrington , in Milton v. Wainwright, supra, Chief Justice Burger, obviously distressed by yet another collateral attack on a fourteen year old conviction, gave Milton such short shrift that Justice Stewart and three others protested his turning the back of the Supreme Court on a forty year old landmark constitutional precedent "[u]nder the guise of finding `harmless error.'" Id., at 378, 92 S.Ct., at 2178, 33 L.Ed.2d, at 7 . [9] Earlier the Court had agreed that "the Sixth Amendment notice requirement set out in Estelle v. Smith was not met[,]" id., at 25 1989Three months later and also following Harrington , in Milton v. Wainwright, supra, Chief Justice Burger, obviously distressed by yet another collateral attack on a fourteen year old conviction, gave Milton such short shrift that Justice Stewart and three others protested his turning the back of the Supreme Court on a forty year old landmark constitutional precedent "[u]nder the guise of finding `harmless error.'" Id., at 378, 92 S.Ct., at 2178, 33 L.Ed.2d, at 7 . [9] Earlier the Court had agreed that "the Sixth Amendment notice requirement set out in Estelle v. Smith was not met[,]" id., at 25 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Milton v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1989Three months later and also following Harrington , in Milton v. Wainwright, supra, Chief Justice Burger, obviously distressed by yet another collateral attack on a fourteen year old conviction, gave Milton such short shrift that Justice Stewart and three others protested his turning the back of the Supreme Court on a forty year old landmark constitutional precedent "(u]nder the guise of finding ‘harmless error.’ ” Id., at 378 , 92 S.Ct., at 2178, 33 L.Ed.2d, at 7 . . 1989Three months later and also following Harrington , in Milton v. Wainwright, supra, Chief Justice Burger, obviously distressed by yet another collateral attack on a fourteen year old conviction, gave Milton such short shrift that Justice Stewart and three others protested his turning the back of the Supreme Court on a forty year old landmark constitutional precedent "(u]nder the guise of finding ‘harmless error.’ ” Id., at 378 , 92 S.Ct., at 2178, 33 L.Ed.2d, at 7 . . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Pope v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1989Pope v. Illinois, supra, at 502-503, 107 S.Ct., at 1922 , 95 L.Ed.2d, at 447 . [7] See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (denial of rights under Confrontation Clause of Sixth Amendment made applicable to states through Due Process Clause of Fourteenth by Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). [8] Schneble v. Florida, supra, like Harrington , is a Bruton violation, and at 430-432, 92 S.Ct., at 1059-1060, for the majority (Chief) Justice Rehnquist closely tracks the analysis previously made by Justice Douglas in Harrin 1989Pope v. Illinois, supra, at 502-503, 107 S.Ct., at 1922 , 95 L.Ed.2d, at 447 . [7] See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (denial of rights under Confrontation Clause of Sixth Amendment made applicable to states through Due Process Clause of Fourteenth by Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). [8] Schneble v. Florida, supra, like Harrington , is a Bruton violation, and at 430-432, 92 S.Ct., at 1059-1060, for the majority (Chief) Justice Rehnquist closely tracks the analysis previously made by Justice Douglas in Harrin | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Threadgill v. State
neutral
2 sentences1979See Livingston v. State, 531 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Threadgill v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 157 , 239 S.W.2d 813 (1951). 1979See Livingston v. State, 531 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Threadgill v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 157 , 239 S.W.2d 813 (1951). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Hearne v. State
green
2 sentences1974Carey v. State, supra. Cf. Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 846 ; Hearne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 851 . 1974Carey v. State, supra. Cf. Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 846 ; Hearne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 851 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Evans v. State
green
2 sentences1974Carey v. State, supra. Cf. Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 846 ; Hearne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 851 . 1974Carey v. State, supra. Cf. Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 846 ; Hearne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 851 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
James Raymond Neal v. United States
green
2 sentences1970People v. Moll, supra. Neal v. United States, 415 F.2d 599 (9th Cir.) held the Bruton error there harmless under Harrington and noted that the harmless error rule as applied to admitting the confession of a co-defendant implicating defendant is not limited to circumstances in which a co-defendant whose confession was received was available for cross-examination. 1970People v. Moll, supra. Neal v. United States, 415 F.2d 599 (9th Cir.) held the Bruton error there harmless under Harrington and noted that the harmless error rule as applied to admitting the confession of a co-defendant implicating defendant is not limited to circumstances in which a co-defendant whose confession was received was available for cross-examination. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
United States v. George Clayton, Jr.
green
2 sentences1970This was followed by the decision of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in United States v. Clayton, 418 F.2d 1274 , holding that overwhelming evidence of a defendant’s guilt was sufficient to overcome a Bruton *223 error even though there was no showing that the co-defendant, whose confession was received, was available for cross-examination or that the defendant had made a confession which was introduced. 1970This was followed by the decision of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in United States v. Clayton, 418 F.2d 1274 , holding that overwhelming evidence of a defendant’s guilt was sufficient to overcome a Bruton *223 error even though there was no showing that the co-defendant, whose confession was received, was available for cross-examination or that the defendant had made a confession which was introduced. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.