The People v. Assad Cedeno
New York Court of Appeals
1DissentPigott, J.
The primary issue in this case boils down to whether codefendant Villanueva’s redacted statement “obviously refers to the defendant” (Gray v Maryland, 523 US 185, 194 [1998]). The majority holds that it does. I disagree.
A redacted statement of a non-testifying codefendant cannot be admitted at a defendant’s joint trial if the redaction “so closely resemble [s] ” the facially incriminating statements prohibited by Bruton v United States (391 US 123 [1968]) that the jury cannot refrain from attributing it to the defendant (Gray, 523 US at 192). Redactions that simply “replace[ ] a defendant’s…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Harrington v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- People v. HawkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- Gray v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. JassCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.