Bruton rule in Pennsylvania

2026In Richardson, supra at 202 , … the High Court considered whether Bruton’s holding applies when co-defendant A’s confession was redacted to omit any reference to co-defendant B, but co-defendant B was “nonetheless linked to the confession by evidence properly admitted against him at trial.” In answering this question in the negative, the Richardson Court distinguished between a confession that was incriminating on its face to codefendant B (which was clearly subject to Bruton’s rule) and a confession that was incriminating to co-defendant B only by inference from evidence subsequently introduc

2022In Richardson, supra at 202 , 107 S. Ct. 1702 the High Court considered whether Bruton’s holding applies when co-defendant A's confession was redacted to omit any reference to co-defendant B, but co-defendant B was “nonetheless linked to the confession by evidence properly admitted against him at trial.” In answering this question in the negative, the Richardson Court distinguished between a confession that was incriminating on its face to codefendant B (which was clearly subject to Bruton’s rule) and a confession that was incriminating to co-defendant B only by inference from evidence subsequ

2025See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Cannon, 22 A.3d 210, 219 (Pa. 2011) (“Thus, pursuant to Brown [I], a Bruton violation may arise when a prosecutor discloses to the jury that the co-defendant’s statement has been redacted and unequivocally identifies the defendant as the individual whose name was removed.” (emphasis added)).

2025The Commonwealth argues “there is no Bruton violation if the identification of a defendant ‘was inculpatory [only] by reference to evidence other than the redacted confession.’” Id. at 22 (quoting Commonwealth v. Cannon, 22 A.3d 210, 219 (Pa. 2011)).

2025Further, “the United States Supreme Court has not extended the reach of its per se Bruton rule to comments by counsel, which are by definition nonevidentiary.” Commonwealth v. Roney, 622 Pa. 1, 57 , 79 A.3d 595, 629 (2013), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 829 , 135 S.Ct. 56 , 190 L.Ed.2d 56 (2014). “[U]nder certain circumstances a prosecutor’s comments might be so prejudicial as to raise the possibility of a Bruton violation, e.g., if the prosecution discloses to the jury that the co-defendant’s statement has been redacted and unequivocally identifies the defendant as the individual whose name was remo

2025Further, “the United States Supreme Court has not extended the reach of its per se Bruton rule to comments by counsel, which are by definition nonevidentiary.” Roney, 79 A.3d at 629 .

2024Commonwealth’s Brief at 49 (citing, inter alia, Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (1972) (even if admission at trial of co-defendant’s statement constituted a Bruton violation, admission was harmless in light of overwhelming properly admitted evidence of defendant’s guilt); Commonwealth v. Wharton, 607 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1992) (even if redacted statement at issue did not sufficiently protect defendant’s interests, any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence implicating defendant)).

2024Commonwealth’s Brief at 49 (citing, inter alia, Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (1972) (even if admission at trial of co-defendant’s statement constituted a Bruton violation, admission was harmless in light of overwhelming properly admitted evidence of defendant’s guilt); Commonwealth v. Wharton, 607 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1992) (even if redacted statement at issue did not sufficiently protect defendant’s interests, any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence implicating defendant)).

2020In Bruton, the U.S. Supreme Court 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 that confession only against the codefendant.” Commonwealth v. James, 66 A.3d 771, 776 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some citations omitted). - 25 - J-S23011-20, J-S23012-20, J-S23013-20 The “per se Bruton rule” that a cautionary instruction cannot cure a violation of a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights under certain circ

2018This Court has followed our Supreme Court’s precedent and held that “there is no Bruton violation when the accused is linked to the crime with other properly admitted evidence other than the redacted confession; it is a permissible instance of contextual implication.” Commonwealth v. James, 66 A.3d 771, 777 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 77 A.3d 636 (Pa. 2013) (cleaned up).

1997See Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 511 Pa. 169, 174-75 , 512 A.2d 603, 605-06 (1986); Story, 476 Pa. at 411 , 383 A.2d at 165 .

1997See Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 511 Pa. 169, 174-75 , 512 A.2d 603, 605-06 (1986); Story, 476 Pa. at 411 , 383 A.2d at 165 .

2016Appellant responded complaining that the Court violated the confrontation clause to the Constitution of the United States when it allowed the prosecution to introduce the statement of codefendant Tyrone Wright in violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 ( 196~ l; that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in multiple respects; and that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise the issue involving the alleged Bruton violation.

2016Appellant responded complaining that the Court violated the confrontation clause to the Constitution of the United States when it allowed the prosecution to introduce the statement of codefendant Tyrone Wright in violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 ( 196~ l; that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in multiple respects; and that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise the issue involving the alleged Bruton violation.

2019As the Court stated in Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 195 , 118 S.Ct. 1151, 1156 , 140 L.Ed.2d (1998), "Richardson placed outside the scope of Bruton's rule those statements that incriminate 3 At the Defendant's request, this Court also addressed this issue duringjnry selection.

2019As the Court stated in Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 195 , 118 S.Ct. 1151, 1156 , 140 L.Ed.2d (1998), "Richardson placed outside the scope of Bruton's rule those statements that incriminate 3 At the Defendant's request, this Court also addressed this issue duringjnry selection.

2020In Bruton, the U.S. Supreme Court 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 that confession only against the codefendant.” Commonwealth v. James, 66 A.3d 771, 776 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some citations omitted). - 25 - J-S23011-20, J-S23012-20, J-S23013-20 The “per se Bruton rule” that a cautionary instruction cannot cure a violation of a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights under certain circ

2017In Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 A.2d 147 (Pa. 2007), the Court examined the circumstances surrounding a purported Bruton violation during the prosecutor’s argument and concluded that the defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated in light of the proper redaction of his co-defendant’s confession at trial, and the “direct, unequivocal, and strong” curative instruction the trial court gave to the jury that the confession could not be used in any way against the defendant.

2014We need not engage the parties’ reliance upon decisional law from other jurisdictions, including the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, because those cases do not control, see, e.g., Stone Crushed Partnership v. Kassab Archbold Jackson & O’Brien, 589 Pa. 296 , 908 A.2d 875, 884 (2006), and there is ample decisional case law from this Court following and applying Bruton .

2014We need not engage the parties’ reliance upon decisional law from other jurisdictions, including the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, because those cases do not control, see, e.g., Stone Crushed Partnership v. Kassab Archbold Jackson & O’Brien, 589 Pa. 296 , 908 A.2d 875, 884 (2006), and there is ample decisional case law from this Court following and applying Bruton .

2026Id. at 12 - 15.

2021See Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1044 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating “[b]oilerplate allegations and bald assertions of no reasonable basis and/or ensuing prejudice cannot satisfy a petitioner’s burden to prove that counsel was ineffective” (citation omitted)), appeal denied, 216 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2019); and Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating “[w]here the defendant asserts a layered ineffectiveness claim he must properly argue each prong of the three-prong ineffectiveness test for each separate attorney” (citations omitted)). -8- J-S20005-21 Order affirme

2024See Harrington v. California, [ 395 U.S. 250, 253 (1969)] (assuming Bruton violation where confessions describe codefendant as the “white guy” and gives a description of his age, height, weight, and hair color).

1998See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) (assuming Bruton violation where confessions describe codefendant as the “white guy” and gives a description of his age, height, weight, and hair color).

2015The Defendant also references Commonwealth v. Miles, 681 A.2d 1295, 1301 (Pa. 1996), which also discusses prosecutorial misconduct but for violation of the Bruton rule, after the Commonwealth attempted to use a non-testifying co-defendant' swords against a 12 ) .

2015The Defendant also references Commonwealth v. Miles, 681 A.2d 1295, 1301 (Pa. 1996), which also discusses prosecutorial misconduct but for violation of the Bruton rule, after the Commonwealth attempted to use a non-testifying co-defendant' swords against a 12 ) .

2024Accord Commonwealth v. Epps, 240 A.3d 640, 650 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding no Bruton violation where non-testifying co-defendant’s statement was redacted to refer to “the other guy” and the trial court issued an -6- J-A24036-23 appropriate cautionary instruction).

2021Travers, 768 A.2d at 848 ; see also Commonwealth v. Epps, 240 A.3d 640, 651 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“Because [the co-defendant’s] statement did - 13 - J-S50038-20 not directly reference Epps and the court issued an appropriate cautionary instruction, there was no confrontation violation.”).

2017In Commonwealth v. Wright, 865 A.2d 894, 901 (Pa. Super. 2004), this Court determined that: [T]he standards set out by the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Snyder, 552 Pa. 44 , 713 A.2d 596 (1998), and the subsequent application of those standards in the en banc decision of this Court in Commonwealth v. Snyder, 761 A.2d 584 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 703 , 813 A.2d 841 (2002), are the touchstones upon which we must analyze the claim of appellant. ____________________________________________ 5 Even if not waived, Appellant would not prevail on her Bruton claim.

2017In Commonwealth v. Wright, 865 A.2d 894, 901 (Pa. Super. 2004), this Court determined that: [T]he standards set out by the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Snyder, 552 Pa. 44 , 713 A.2d 596 (1998), and the subsequent application of those standards in the en banc decision of this Court in Commonwealth v. Snyder, 761 A.2d 584 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 703 , 813 A.2d 841 (2002), are the touchstones upon which we must analyze the claim of appellant. ____________________________________________ 5 Even if not waived, Appellant would not prevail on her Bruton claim.

2007See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231 , 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1570 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 431 , 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726, 1728 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Commonwealth v. Lee, 541 Pa. 260, 272 , 662 A.2d 645, 652 (1995); Commonwealth v. Wharton, 530 Pa. 127, 140 , 607 A.2d 710, 717 (1992). .

2007See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231 , 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1570 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 431 , 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726, 1728 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Commonwealth v. Lee, 541 Pa. 260, 272 , 662 A.2d 645, 652 (1995); Commonwealth v. Wharton, 530 Pa. 127, 140 , 607 A.2d 710, 717 (1992). .

1995Redacted testimony may still violate the Bruton rule if it is “powerfully incriminating” and lends “‘substantial, perhaps critical weight’ to the prosecution’s case.” Commonwealth v. Rawls, 276 Pa.Super. 89, 97 , 419 A.2d 109, 113 (1980).

1995Redacted testimony may still violate the Bruton rule if it is “powerfully incriminating” and lends “‘substantial, perhaps critical weight’ to the prosecution’s case.” Commonwealth v. Rawls, 276 Pa.Super. 89, 97 , 419 A.2d 109, 113 (1980).

2024Commonwealth’s Brief at 49 (citing, inter alia, Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (1972) (even if admission at trial of co-defendant’s statement constituted a Bruton violation, admission was harmless in light of overwhelming properly admitted evidence of defendant’s guilt); Commonwealth v. Wharton, 607 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1992) (even if redacted statement at issue did not sufficiently protect defendant’s interests, any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence implicating defendant)).

2024Commonwealth’s Brief at 49 (citing, inter alia, Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (1972) (even if admission at trial of co-defendant’s statement constituted a Bruton violation, admission was harmless in light of overwhelming properly admitted evidence of defendant’s guilt); Commonwealth v. Wharton, 607 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1992) (even if redacted statement at issue did not sufficiently protect defendant’s interests, any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence implicating defendant)).

2020Commonwealth v. Johnson, 378 A.2d 859 (Pa. 1977). 23 [Order, attaching Ex.

2020Commonwealth v. Johnson, 378 A.2d 859 (Pa. 1977). 23 [Order, attaching Ex.

2009See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) (“[W]here two defendants are tried jointly, the pretrial confession of one cannot be admitted against the other unless the confessing defendant takes the stand.”); Nelson v. O’Neil, 402 U.S. 622, 627 , 91 S.Ct. 1723 , 29 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971) (“The Constitution as construed in Bruton, in other words, is violated only where the out-of-court hearsay statement is that of a declarant who is unavailable at the trial for ‘full and effective’ cross-examination.”); Commonwealth v. Overby, 570 Pa. 328 , 809 A.2d 295, 303 (

1973In Nelson v. O’Neill, 402 U.S. 622 (1971), the Supreme Court held that any Bruton error is cured by a full and effective cross-examination, and that the cross-examination is full and effective even though it only elicits the denials of the co-defendant that he had ever made the damaging statements.

1986Furthermore, in the earlier but never overruled case of Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970), the Supreme Court held that since the Bruton rule has no application in instances where the conspiracy is already shown, “further highlighting the Sixth Amendment rationale behind the co-conspirator exceptions to the hearsay rule,” that “the conspiracy once proven may admit hearsay declarations by co-conspirators, but, the hearsay declarations do not prove the conspiracy.” (Emphasis added.) The case of Hirsch itself cites U.S. v. Geaney, 417 F.Siipp. 1116 (2d Cir. 1969)

1986Furthermore, in the earlier but never overruled case of Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970), the Supreme Court held that since the Bruton rule has no application in instances where the conspiracy is already shown, “further highlighting the Sixth Amendment rationale behind the co-conspirator exceptions to the hearsay rule,” that “the conspiracy once proven may admit hearsay declarations by co-conspirators, but, the hearsay declarations do not prove the conspiracy.” (Emphasis added.) The case of Hirsch itself cites U.S. v. Geaney, 417 F.Siipp. 1116 (2d Cir. 1969)

2024In a majority opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court explained that the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession which has been altered to remove a defendant’s name, when coupled with a limiting instruction, is consistent with [J-19-2024] - 15 historical evidentiary practice, and is “in accord with the law’s broader assumption that jurors can be relied upon to follow the trial judge’s instructions.” Id. at 646 . 6 The Court noted that Bruton’s recognition of a “narrow exception,” id. at 647 , to this presumption applies only to confessions that directly implicate a defenda

2024In a majority opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court explained that the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession which has been altered to remove a defendant’s name, when coupled with a limiting instruction, is consistent with [J-19-2024] - 15 historical evidentiary practice, and is “in accord with the law’s broader assumption that jurors can be relied upon to follow the trial judge’s instructions.” Id. at 646 . 6 The Court noted that Bruton’s recognition of a “narrow exception,” id. at 647 , to this presumption applies only to confessions that directly implicate a defenda

2007See Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973) (violation of confrontation rights harmless beyond reasonable doubt where improper evidence merely cumulative of overwhelming evidence of guilt); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) (.Bruton violation harmless beyond reasonable doubt since overwhelming evidence of guilt outweighed comparative insignificance of confession); Harrington, supra (overwhelming evidence of guilt and relatively insignificant prejudicial impact of co-defendant’s statement rendered Bruton violation harm

2007See Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973) (violation of confrontation rights harmless beyond reasonable doubt where improper evidence merely cumulative of overwhelming evidence of guilt); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) (.Bruton violation harmless beyond reasonable doubt since overwhelming evidence of guilt outweighed comparative insignificance of confession); Harrington, supra (overwhelming evidence of guilt and relatively insignificant prejudicial impact of co-defendant’s statement rendered Bruton violation harm