Citation network
Schneble Vs. Florida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 1972
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 427 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. 427 (1972) Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
into evidence of his codefendant' statement deprived him of his right to confrontation in violation of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court affirmed. This Court vacated and remanded the case for further consideration in the light of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
by the jury was too great to be constitutionally permissible. Bruton was held to be retroactive in Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the admission was harmless error. In Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
for the jury's verdict, completely consistent with the judge's instruction, stares us in the face. See Rogers v. MissouriSearch
-
Harrintgon v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. at 391 U. S. 135 , quoting Lutwak v. UnitedSearch
-
possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required. See Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
is therefore not at issue here. That question is currently under consideration in Aikens v. CaliforniaSearch
-
When the case was last before us, we vacated the conviction and remanded for further consideration in light of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). See Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
within the meaning of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the admission of the codefendant's statement made no difference to the outcome. The Court relies on Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
statements, he made the initial determination that those statements were voluntary, as required by Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
It is possible that the jury may have found the statements to be involuntary and still relied on them. See Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
But it is by no means certain that the jury did not meticulously follow the instructions of the trial judge. See Lego v. TwomeySearch
-
cannot be certain that the jury did not base its verdict primarily on the statement of the codefendant. See Malinski v. NewSearch
-
Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
find harmless error in this case. Unless the Court intends to emasculate Bruton, supra, or to overrule Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Rogers v. MissouriSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
In Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Rogers v. MissouriSearch
-
Lutwak v. UnitedSearch
-
See Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Aikens v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
See Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
See Lego v. TwomeySearch
-
See Malinski v. NewSearch
-
Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial