Government of the Virgin Islands v. Jose Enrique Rivera, David Felix Castillo. Jose Enrique Rivera

Third Circuit

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Jose Enrique Rivera, David Felix Castillo. Jose Enrique Rivera

442 F.2d 407, 8 V.I. 330, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1971

Docket18818_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 442 F.2d 407 (Government of the Virgin Islands v. Jose Enrique Rivera, David Felix Castillo. Jose Enrique Rivera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Jose Enrique Rivera, David Felix Castillo. Jose Enrique Rivera, 442 F.2d 407, 8 V.I. 330, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611 (3d Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction of second degree murder. Appellant contends, inter alia, that the use at trial of a statement made by his co-defendant was error under the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). That case prohibited the use of a statement against a defendant which incriminated a co-defendant. The court recognized that an admonition by the judge will not erase from the minds of the jury those admissions of the declarant which implicate the non-declarant. In the instant case, however, the statement read to the jury contained nothing that implicated or incriminated appellant.

Bruton, supra, was grounded on the denial of a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. If his co-defendant does not testify, there can be no attack made on the incriminating statements. In the instant case, the co-defendant did testify and thus was subject to cross-examination by appellant as to his pretrial statement. Appellant cannot be heard to argue that he was denied the right of confrontation. Wade v. Yeager, 415 F.2d 570 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 974 (1969).

We have carefully considered each of the other arguments made by appellant and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court will, therefore, be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction of second degree murder. Appellant contends, inter alia, that the use at trial of a statement made by his co-defendant was error under the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). That case prohibited the use of a statement against a defendant which incriminated a co-defendant. The court recognized that an admonition by the judge will not erase from the minds of the jury those admissions of the declarant which implicate the non-declarant. In the instant case, however, the statement read to the jury contained nothing that implicated or incriminated appellant.

Bruton, supra, was grounded on the denial of a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. If his co-defendant does not testify, there can be no attack made on the incriminating statements. In the instant case, the co-defendant did testify and thus was subject to cross-examination by appellant as to his pretrial statement. Appellant cannot be heard to argue that he was denied the right of confrontation. Wade v. Yeager, 415 F.2d 570 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 974 (1969).

We have carefully considered each of the other arguments made by appellant and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court will, therefore, be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F.2d 407, 8 V.I. 330, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/government-of-the-virgin-islands-v-jose-enrique-rivera-david-felix-ca3-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack