The court cited Buckminster, Sweetin, Fisher, and Carmichael for the rule that codefendants' incriminating statements required severance "unless the state's attorney declares that the admissions or confessions will not be offered in evidence upon the trial or unless there be eliminated from the confessions any reference to the codefendant applying for a severance.
337) The court then discussed how the codefendant confessions at issue were appropriately redacted.
As in Albers, the court defined antagonistic defenses by the defenses actually offered at trial, not by the content of codefendants' pretrial statements--a distinction that later would be lost as courts indiscriminately lumped codefendant statements together with antagonistic defenses or treated the former as a subcategory of the latter.
error to permit codefendant to present, with defendant's jury in courtroom, the eyewitness testimony of an eight-year-old girl identifying defendant as triggerman who shot victim), rev.
While the out-of-court statement may be admissible against the confessing defendant, it is inadmissible against codefendants having the same jury as the declarant.
949 (1975), for example, a defendant in a multiparty bank robbery case had one jury render his verdict while two codefendants were tried at the same time by a second jury.
179) If this form of redaction would unduly prejudice a codefendant, such as in the case of only two codefendants where "Me and deleted" is more obvious, then the nonconfessor may appeal to federal and state roles of criminal procedure which provide for severance or the exclusion of the confession.
181) The dissent believed a confession should only be barred when it is facially incriminating, meaning that the jury is compelled to link the codefendant to the incriminating statements independent of other evidence admitted at trial.
192) Further, a juror's ability to infer that a confession refers to a codefendant is inconsequential because the trial judge's limiting instructions adequately safeguard against this type of speculation.
550) The court noted that although Miner was not denied his confrontation rights as to this statement because Ledbetter testified and was thus available for cross-examination (citing Bruton and its progeny), that alone did not make the statement admissible unless all references to the non-declaring codefendant were deleted.
556) Thus, it appears that the appellants wove together the issues of antagonistic defenses, codefendant statements, and joint representation in a jumbled, haphazard fashion that the court then had to try to pick apart--frequently a recipe for trouble.
562) The court apparently was unaware that its brief, summarizing statement that antagonistic defenses required that defendants testify against each other went against a wide array of earlier Illinois authorities, namely, all those involving only codefendant statements.