Earlier this month, the Supreme Court granted cert in Samia v. United States, in which it may resolve one of the issues left open by Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987), and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998).
Samia was tried along with two other defendants for murder for hire and related crimes. One of the co-defendants had made a confession that named Samia. The court instructed the jury not to consider it against Samia, but under Bruton, that alone would not have been sufficient. Nor, under Gray, would it have sufficed if the confession had been redacted with Samia's name replaced by some indication such as "[name deleted]." But under Richardson, if it had been redacted to remove all references to Samia, that would have been acceptable. Samia's case falls between Gray and Richardson; the trial court allowed redactions so that the confession as reported to the jury included references in forms such "somebody else" and "the other person he was with." Given other evidence in the case, it could be readily inferred that the references were to Samia.
I'm going to guess that the cert grant suggests that the Supreme Court will come down on Samia's side. We should know before the end of the term.
1 comment:
I agree. Samia wins. But will the Court overrule or modify Gray and return to Richardson's holding: Redaction must remove any reference to unavailable declarant co-defendant's existence?
Post a Comment