Roberts v. Russell, No. 920

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; BLACK; HARLAN
Citation20 L.Ed.2d 1100,392 U.S. 293,88 S.Ct. 1921
Decision Date10 June 1968
Docket NumberM,No. 920
PartiesCarl Houston ROBERTS v. Lake E. RUSSELL. isc

392 U.S. 293
88 S.Ct. 1921
20 L.Ed.2d 1100
Carl Houston ROBERTS

v.

Lake E. RUSSELL.

No. 920, Misc.
June 10, 1968.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1968.

See 89 S.Ct. 73.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen. of Tennessee, and Paul E. Jennings, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, decided May 20, 1968, we overruled Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 294, 1 L.Ed.2d 278 and held that, despite instructions to the jury to disregard the implicating statements in determining the codefendant's guilt or innocence, admission at a joint trial of a defendant's extrajudicial confession implicating a codefendant violated the codefendant's right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. This case presents the question whether Bruton is to be applied retroactively. We hold that it is.

The facts parallel the facts in Bruton. The petitioner was convicted by a jury of armed robbery at a joint trial with one Rappe in Davidson County, Tennessee. A police officer testified that Rappe orally confessed to him that petitioner and Rappe committed the crime.

Page 294

The trial judge instructed the jury that Rappe's confession was admissible against her but that her statements implicating petitioner were not to be considered in determining petitioner's guilt or innocence. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction. Petitioner filed a proceeding in federal habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. That court relied on Delli Paoli and denied relief. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Although Bruton involved a federal prosecution and this is a state prosecution, the right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923; Douglas v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934.

'We have * * * retroactively applied rules of criminal procedure fashioned to correct serious flaws in the fact-finding process at trial.' Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 298, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. See Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
511 practice notes
  • Figueroa v. Portuondo, No. 97 Civ. 2920(AKH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 10, 1999
    ...statement, while inculpatory, was by no stretch of the imagination a `confession'" (quoting and discussing Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968))). Later decisions that applied Bruton and Parker are to similar effect. See, e.g., Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 53......
  • People v. Epps, Cr. 10767
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 1973
    ...is otherwise established.' (Id. at p. 530, fn. omitted, 47 Cal.Rptr. at p. 361, 407 P.2d at p. 273. 5 ) In Roberts v. Russell (1968) 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100, reh. den. (1968) 393 U.S. 899, [34 Cal.App.3d 156] 89 S.Ct. 73, 21 L.Ed.2d 191, the United States Supreme Court ......
  • Wilson v. Superior Court, Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1982
    ...J.), quoting Williams v. United States (1971) 401 U.S. 646, 653, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 1152, 28 L.Ed.2d 388, e.g., Roberts v. Russell (1968) 392 U.S. 293, 295, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 1922, 20 L.Ed.2d In Williams v. Kidd (1915) 170 Cal. 631, 151 P. 1, the court stated at page 649, 151 P. 1: "[A]s the purpo......
  • People v. Brawley, Cr. 10838
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 21, 1969
    ...evidence unless it is persuaded of the existence of 'the preliminary fact.') 2 Bruton must be applied retroactively (Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100), and, although Bruton involved a federal prosecution, the right of cross-examination secured by the confront......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
507 cases
  • Figueroa v. Portuondo, No. 97 Civ. 2920(AKH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 10, 1999
    ...statement, while inculpatory, was by no stretch of the imagination a `confession'" (quoting and discussing Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968))). Later decisions that applied Bruton and Parker are to similar effect. See, e.g., Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 53......
  • People v. Epps, Cr. 10767
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 1973
    ...is otherwise established.' (Id. at p. 530, fn. omitted, 47 Cal.Rptr. at p. 361, 407 P.2d at p. 273. 5 ) In Roberts v. Russell (1968) 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100, reh. den. (1968) 393 U.S. 899, [34 Cal.App.3d 156] 89 S.Ct. 73, 21 L.Ed.2d 191, the United States Supreme Court ......
  • Wilson v. Superior Court, Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1982
    ...J.), quoting Williams v. United States (1971) 401 U.S. 646, 653, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 1152, 28 L.Ed.2d 388, e.g., Roberts v. Russell (1968) 392 U.S. 293, 295, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 1922, 20 L.Ed.2d In Williams v. Kidd (1915) 170 Cal. 631, 151 P. 1, the court stated at page 649, 151 P. 1: "[A]s the purpo......
  • People v. Brawley, Cr. 10838
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 21, 1969
    ...evidence unless it is persuaded of the existence of 'the preliminary fact.') 2 Bruton must be applied retroactively (Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100), and, although Bruton involved a federal prosecution, the right of cross-examination secured by the confront......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT