Sometimes, but a codefendant’s confession is not automatically usable against every defendant in a joint trial. The answer can depend on whether the statement is testimonial, whether it directly accuses the defendant, how it was redacted, and what limiting instruction the jury receives. A redaction or instruction is not a universal cure, and severance is not automatic. (Bruton v. United States; Penal Code § 1098)
First ask whether the statement is testimonial
For the federal confrontation question, a testimonial statement offered against the accused generally requires that the declarant be unavailable and that the accused previously had an opportunity for cross-examination. Police interrogation is a central example of testimonial evidence. That threshold does not answer every hearsay or California evidence question; a statement that falls outside this confrontation rule may still face other objections. (Crawford v. Washington)
If a non-testifying codefendant’s testimonial confession directly and powerfully identifies the defendant, Bruton holds that a limiting instruction alone may not cure the confrontation problem. But later cases distinguish different redactions. In Richardson v. Marsh, the redaction removed the defendant’s name and any reference to the defendant’s existence, and the confession implicated the defendant only when linked to other evidence; with a proper instruction, that statement fell outside Bruton’s holding. (Bruton; Richardson v. Marsh)
An obvious blank or “deleted” substitute that still points directly to the defendant is different. Gray v. Maryland treated that sort of conspicuous redaction as remaining within Bruton’s concern. By contrast, Samia v. United States allowed a particular neutral “other person” reference with a proper instruction where the redacted statement did not directly inculpate the defendant. Samia does not approve every neutral pronoun or every redaction; the actual wording and trial context matter. (Gray v. Maryland; Samia v. United States)
Review the statement, proposed edit, and intended use
Counsel should compare the original recording or transcript with the version the prosecution proposes to offer. Identify every name, pronoun, blank, or reference to another participant, then read the statement alongside the evidence the jury will hear and the proposed instruction. Also determine whether the speaker will testify, whether the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the speaker, and whether the prosecution proposes to use the statement against one defendant or more than one.
Those details can inform a request to exclude the statement, change the redaction or instruction, or seek separate trials. California Penal Code § 1098 generally provides for joint trial of jointly charged defendants unless the court orders otherwise; it does not make severance automatic whenever one defendant’s statement is involved. (Penal Code § 1098)
California decisions also require attention to state-law issues. People v. Washington applied the testimonial-statement limit in its Aranda/Bruton confrontation analysis, while People v. Fletcher addressed redacted pronouns before Crawford and Samia. Those cases do not establish that every nontestimonial statement is admissible or that a particular redaction always resolves a state evidentiary objection. Hearsay, Evidence Code § 352, and other objections require separate review. (People v. Washington; People v. Fletcher)
Preserve the full statement, the proposed redacted copy, relevant instructions, and the portions of the record showing how the prosecution used it. For general trial information, see the Law Offices of David S. Chesley’s trial page or call (800) 755-5174.