Search for: ""Bruton v. United States" OR "391 U.S. 123""
Results 1 - 18 of 18
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Aug 2012, 4:32 am by Jessica Smith
United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), held that a defendant’s confrontation clause rights are violated when a non-testifying codefendant’s confession naming the defendant as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury [...] [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 9:01 am
United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135-37 (1968), the Supreme Court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession implicating the defendant is reversible error where the codefendant did not testify and the co-defendant and defendant are jointly tried. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 1:12 pm
United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), apply to a bench trial in a criminal proceeding? [read post]
12 Sep 2014, 10:45 am by Sean Hanover
United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), was originally aimed at co-conspirators, but subsequently expanded to include co-defendants. [read post]
20 Dec 2006, 9:35 am
United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1985), two defendants were tried jointly for armed robbery. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 12:29 pm
United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123, 128-136 (Bruton).) [read post]
15 Apr 2012, 8:53 am by Alison Brill
United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968)) was a “by-product” of the Confrontation Clause, and the statements on the Title III recording were non-testimonial, Bruton did not preclude admission of the statements against the non-recorded co-defendants. [read post]