Legal Opinion

Foster v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 13, 1988No. 84-1741, 84-1800PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NEWMAN, Associate Judge:

In Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), further explicating Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), the Court held “the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession with a proper limiting instruction when, as here, the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name but any reference to her existence.” Richardson v. Marsh, supra, 107 S.Ct. at 1709. The Court further stated: “We express no opinion on the admissibility of a…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Harrington v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Bernal v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
  2. Lemon v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. People v. BanksMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Elliott v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. Akins v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API