Can anyone explain this (Criminal Justice question)

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by AndrewR23, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. AndrewR23 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #1
    What was the rule of evidence law adopted by the U.S Supreme Court in the BRUTON v. UNITED STATES in the decision.

    I found this quote

    "Holding that a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated when a non-testifying codefendant’s confession incriminating the defendant is introduced at their joint trial, despite the judge’s jury instruction that the confession was only to be considered against the codefendant."


    http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...ontation-and-compulsory-process/bruton-v-u-s/

    Anyone help me with this please?
     
  2. AndrewR23 thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
  3. soco macrumors 68030

    soco

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Location:
    Yardley, PA
    #3
    Try here.
    ihavenoidea

    Even though I work for the Supreme Court, I don't have the mental capacity to look through that. My brain done hurted.
     
  4. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #4
    Why is law language like that? Couldn't they use a normal vocabulary so that mortals can go ahead and represent themselves without an attorney? Oh, wait...:p
     
  5. AndrewR23 thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #5
    Could you help explain what this quote means?

    "Holding that a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated when a non-testifying codefendant’s confession incriminating the defendant is introduced at their joint trial, despite the judge’s jury instruction that the confession was only to be considered against the codefendant."
     
  6. steve2112 macrumors 68040

    steve2112

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    East of Lyra, Northwest of Pegasus
    #6
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

    The Confrontation Clause is from the 6th amendment and allows the accused to have face-to-face confrontation with a witness testifying against them.

    My reading is this: Two defendants, A and B. Defendant B confesses to a crime to a third party, and that A assisted in the crime. The two then go to a joint trial. At the trial, the judge issued instructions to the jury that the confession of B is only to be used against defendant B, NOT defendant A. The jury ends up convicting both defendants.

    The appeal basically states the initial trial judge was wrong in allowing the witness testimony and then issuing his instructions to the jury. They didn't have proof that the jury used the confession against defendant A, but it was a possibility. Basically, it boiled down to the witness testimony concerning the confession of defendant B being considered hearsay when applied to defendant A, which is not admissible.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    My hero. [​IMG]
     
  8. AndrewR23 thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #8
    Thats exactly what I was thinking. This sounds about right. Thank you!

    (finishing up my criminal justice degree by the way)
     
  9. nospeed411 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Location:
    east coast
  10. carbonmotion macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #10
    Good work parsing out the issue. Note that not all hearsay is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Some hearsay maybe admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence because it falls under one of the 40 or so exceptions to hearsay.
     
  11. steve2112 macrumors 68040

    steve2112

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    East of Lyra, Northwest of Pegasus
    #11
    Huh. Guess all those episodes of Law and Order I watched finally came in handy. :D

    Also, all those years doing tech support have enabled me to translate babble into normal English. I guess it works for law and techno-babble.
     

Share This Page