holding admission of a noncustodial, spontaneous statement to an undercover police officer that specifically implicated a co-defendant was a violation of Bruton, but was harmless because it was cumulative of other independent evidence of guilt
How later courts described this case
- holding admission of a noncustodial, spontaneous statement to an undercover police officer that specifically implicated a co-defendant was a violation of Bruton, but was harmless because it was cumulative of other independent evidence of guilt
- stating that panel opinion as to all but one defendant’s conviction remained intact
- granting rehearing en banc
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
(ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
A member of the court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.