Erroneously admitted statement of co-defendant was harmless due to “overwhelming independent evidence against petitioner .... ”
How later courts described this case
- Erroneously admitted statement of co-defendant was harmless due to “overwhelming independent evidence against petitioner .... ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAYS, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
The evidence against Samuel Ross, aside from the statement the admissibility of which is contested, does not seem to me to be “so overwhelming that * * * violation of Bruton was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt * * Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726, 1728 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). I agree with the district court judge that Horace Ross’s statement was not “powerfully incriminating” under the Bruton rule and my concurrence rests on that ground.