Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gray Vs. Maryland

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 09, 1998

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

36 entries 3 linked 33 unlinked
Show
  1. Moran Vs. Burbine US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1986
  2. Richardson Vs. Marsh US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1987
  3. United States Vs. Garcia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1859
  4. U.S. 185 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Gray V. Maryland
    Search
  5. against Bell, not Gray. The jury convicted both defendants. Maryland's intermediate appellate court held that Bruton v. United
    Search
  6. of the evidence cannot be allowed. See 391 U. S., at 135-136. Bruton's scope was limited by Richardson v. Marsh
    Search
  7. whereas this Court has assumed that such identifiers fall inside Bruton's protection, see Harrington v. California
    Search
  8. JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue in this case concerns the application of Bruton v. United
    Search
  9. rule applies to the redacted confession before us, we must consider both Bruton and a later case, Richardson v. Marsh
    Search
  10. insulated from crossexamination, violated Bruton's Sixth Amendment rights. Id., at 135. In Richardson v. Marsh
    Search
  11. United States v. Delli
    Search
  12. Paoli, 229 F.2d 319 , 321 (CA2 1956), aff'd, 352 U. S. 232 (1957), overruled by Bruton v. United
    Search
  13. States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). See also Malinski v. New
    Search
  14. United States v. Grinnell
    Search
  15. however, that nicknames and specific descriptions fall inside, not outside, Bruton's protection. See Harrington v. California
    Search
  16. We also note that several Circuits have interpreted Bruton similarly for many years, see, e. g., United States v. Garcia
    Search
  17. Clark v. Maggio
    Search
  18. JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JusTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. In Richardson v. Marsh
    Search
  19. of Bruton v. United
    Search
  20. dissent. The almost invariable assumption of the law is that jurors follow their instructions. Francis v. Franklin
    Search
  21. convictions for the purpose of sentencing enhancement, or statements elicited from a defendant in violation of Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  22. long as the jury is instructed that such evidence may not be considered for the purpose of determining guilt. Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  23. Harris v. New
    Search
  24. physical description that clearly identifies the defendant (which we have assumed Bruton covers, see Harrington v. California
    Search
  25. the increase in its complexity) posed by the approval of such IThe Court is mistaken to suggest that in Richardson v. Marsh
    Search
  26. method of redaction. See ante, at 197. There the parties agreed to the method of redaction, App. in Richardson v. Marsh
    Search
  27. Ogonowski v. State
    Search
  28. Syllabus Gray V. Maryland
    Search
  29. Bruton v. United
    Search
  30. Harrington v. California
    Search
  31. In Richardson v. Marsh
    Search
  32. Malinski v. New
    Search
  33. See Harrington v. California
    Search
  34. Francis v. Franklin
    Search
  35. of Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  36. Spencer v. Texas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial