Gray v. Maryland
523 U.S. 185 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The introduction of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession in a joint trial violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment if it is redacted by replacing the defendant's name with an obvious blank space, symbol, or the word 'deleted'. Such redactions are not meaningfully different from naming the defendant directly and fall under the protective rule of Bruton v. United States.
Facts:
- In 1993, Stacey Williams died following a severe beating.
- Anthony Bell gave a confession to the police, stating that he, Kevin Gray, and Jacquin Vanlandingham had participated in the beating.
- Bell's confession indicated that a total of six individuals were involved in the assault.
- The State of Maryland prosecuted Bell and Gray together in a joint trial for the murder of Williams.
- At the joint trial, Bell did not testify.
- Gray testified at the trial and denied any participation in the beating.
Procedural Posture:
- A Maryland grand jury indicted Anthony Bell and Kevin Gray for murder.
- The State of Maryland tried Bell and Gray jointly in a state trial court.
- Gray's motion for a separate trial was denied by the trial judge.
- The trial judge allowed the State to introduce Bell's confession after redacting Gray's name and replacing it with blank spaces in the written version and the word 'deleted' when read aloud.
- The trial judge instructed the jury to consider the confession as evidence only against Bell.
- The jury convicted both Gray and Bell.
- Gray, as appellant, appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (the state's intermediate appellate court), which set aside his conviction.
- The State of Maryland, as appellant, appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), which reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated Gray's conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Gray's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the introduction of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that is redacted to replace the defendant's name with an obvious blank or the word 'deleted' violate the other defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even with a limiting instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. The introduction of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that is redacted by replacing the defendant's name with an obvious blank or the word 'deleted' violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Such redactions are constitutionally indistinguishable from the unredacted, directly incriminating confession prohibited in Bruton. A jury will readily infer that the blank space or deletion refers to the defendant on trial, especially in light of a limiting instruction that draws attention to the defendant's unique status. Unlike the confession in Richardson v. Marsh, which became incriminating only when linked to other evidence, a confession with an obvious redaction is directly and facially accusatory. The Court reasoned that such redactions point directly to the defendant and function similarly to an accusatory finger, triggering the Bruton rule because the risk of prejudice is one that a limiting instruction cannot cure.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The introduction of a confession redacted with a blank or the word 'deleted' does not violate the Sixth Amendment when accompanied by a proper limiting instruction. The Bruton rule is a 'narrow exception' that applies only to confessions that are 'facially incriminating.' A statement like 'Me, deleted, and a few other guys' is not facially incriminating because it requires the jury to make an inference based on other evidence (such as the defendant's presence in court) to connect the 'deleted' name to the defendant. The law presumes that juries follow instructions, and this presumption should not be abandoned for statements that are not 'powerfully incriminating' on their face. Extending Bruton in this manner compromises society's interest in joint trials and may improperly encourage prosecutors to alter the substance of a confession rather than simply showing that a deletion was made.
Analysis:
Gray v. Maryland significantly clarifies the scope of the Bruton rule and narrows the exception established in Richardson v. Marsh. The decision establishes that the method of redaction is critical; simply replacing a name with a blank or symbol is constitutionally inadequate if it still directly points to the co-defendant. This holding compels prosecutors in joint trials to either seek severance, forgo using the confession, or redact the statement in a manner that removes any reference to the co-defendant's existence entirely. The case reinforces the core Bruton principle that some extrajudicial statements are so powerfully prejudicial that a jury cannot be presumed to disregard them against a co-defendant, irrespective of a limiting instruction.
Unlock the full brief for Gray v. Maryland