People of Michigan v. Julian Dale Key ( 2006 )

Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Chief Justice: Justices:
Opinion Clifford W. Taylor Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
FILED JUNE 14, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 129152
CEDRIC PIPES,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 129154
JULIAN DALE KEY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
YOUNG, J.
Defendants were convicted of first-degree premeditated murder following a
joint trial before one jury. The Court of Appeals reversed defendants’ convictions
on the bases that the admission of each codefendant’s statements to the police
against the other was a violation of Bruton v United States,1 and that the error was
not harmless. In Bruton, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is
deprived of his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights when a nontestifying
codefendant’s confession that inculpates the defendant is introduced at a joint
trial.2
We agree with the Court of Appeals that defendants’ Sixth Amendment
confrontation rights were violated. However, we disagree with the Court of
Appeals that the error warranted reversal of defendants’ convictions.
Unpreserved, constitutional errors are reviewed for plain error affecting substantial
rights. Because defendants have failed to show reversible prejudice, actual
innocence, or that the confrontation error “‘“seriously affect[ed] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation”’”3 of the trial, reversal of their convictions was
improper. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment and reinstate
defendants’ first-degree murder convictions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 23, 2002, three-year-old Destiney Thomas sustained a fatal
gunshot wound as the result of a drive-by shooting. The prosecution charged
1
391 US 123; 88 S Ct 1620; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968).
2
Id. at 126.
3
People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (citations
omitted).
2
defendants Cedric Pipes and Julian Key with first-degree premeditated murder,4
assault with intent to commit murder,5 and possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony6 in connection with the shooting.7
Pursuant to MCR 6.121(C),8 defendants moved for separate trials or
separate juries, arguing that their defenses were “mutually exclusive.”9 In support
of the motion, defendant Key made an offer of proof that he would testify that he
was not present and had no involvement in the shooting. Meanwhile, defendant
Pipes made an offer of proof that he would testify that he was present when
defendant Key shot at the house, but that Pipes had no involvement in the
4
MCL 750.316(1)(a).
5
MCL 750.83.
6
MCL 750.227b.
7
Defendant Pipes was also charged with being a felon in possession of a
firearm. MCL 750.224f(1).
8
MCR 6.121(C) provides that “[o]n a defendant’s motion, the court must
sever the trial of defendants on related offenses on a showing that severance is
necessary to avoid prejudice to substantial rights of the defendant.”
9
In People v Hana, 447 Mich 325, 349; 524 NW2d 682 (1994), this Court
held that “[i]nconsistency of defenses is not enough to mandate severance [under
MCR 6.121(C)]; rather, the defenses must be mutually exclusive or
irreconcilable.” (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) In other words,
“[t]he tension between defenses must be so great that a jury would have to believe
one defendant at the expense of the other.” Id. (Internal citations and quotation
marks omitted.)
3
shooting. Neither defendant argued for severance based on the possibility of a
Bruton error.10
The trial court denied defendants’ motion, determining that defendants
could not make the requisite showing of prejudice necessary to sustain the motion.
The trial court concluded that although defendants’ proposed defenses involved
blame shifting, they were not “mutually exclusive.” Furthermore, the trial court
specifically noted that, given defendants’ offer of proof, no Bruton problem was
present in this case. If the codefendant testifies at trial, then his statements to the
police are admissible because the maker of the statements is subject to cross-
examination. The trial court relied on the offers of proof presented by both
defendants where each unequivocally stated his intention to testify at trial. The
trial court noted multiple times its determination that no Bruton problem was
present because both defendants planned to testify.11
The prosecution’s theory at trial was that the victim died in a drive-by
shooting that resulted from a territorial dispute between defendants and rival drug
dealers. According to the prosecution, rival drug dealers shot defendant Key’s
10
Under Hana, a Bruton error may provide grounds for severance. Id. at
346 n 7; Zafiro v United States, 506 US 534, 539; 113 S Ct 933; 122 L Ed 2d 317(1993).
11
The first proceeding ended in a mistrial. Before the commencement of
the second trial, which is the subject of the present appeal, counsel for defendant
Key asked that the earlier motion for separate trials or juries be reconsidered. The
trial court declined to reconsider the motion, noting that none of the circumstances
had changed.
4
girlfriend’s automobile, a green Jeep Cherokee, in response to an argument with
defendants. Defendant Key frequently used the green Jeep and had it in his
possession when it was shot. The drive-by shooting that killed the victim was an
act of retaliation for the damage done to the automobile.
The trial court admitted into evidence multiple statements given by both
defendants to the police.12 Both defendants’ admissions recounted the argument
with the rival drug dealers and discussions regarding retaliation for the shooting of
the Jeep. Initially, each defendant shifted all blame for the shooting to his
codefendant. Subsequently, each codefendant made statements that inculpated
himself as well as his codefendant. Defendant Key conceded that both he and
defendant Pipes committed the drive-by shooting. Key admitted that he and Pipes
obtained a car from a drug customer, which they used in the drive-by shooting,
while others followed in the Jeep as backup. Likewise, Pipes admitted that he
rented a car for Key to use in the shooting and admitted following behind Key in
the Jeep in order to “watch his [codefendant’s] back” during the shooting.
After the prosecution presented its case-in-chief, the trial court inquired of
defendants regarding how they planned to proceed. At that point, counsel for each
defendant equivocated regarding whether his client would testify. The trial court
12
The trial court instructed the jury that each statement was only to be
considered against the defendant who made the statement. The jury was instructed
on this point when the statements were admitted into evidence and when the trial
court gave final jury instructions. However, as explained infra, such instructions
do not cure a Bruton error.
5
acknowledged that defendants were free to not testify, but reiterated that its denial
of their motion for separate trials and juries was specifically premised on the
unequivocal offers of proof that defendants would testify at trial.
Ultimately, however, defendants exercised their Fifth Amendment right and
did not testify at trial.13 However, defendants never sought a mistrial when the
Bruton error became apparent. The jury convicted both defendants of first-degree
premeditated murder, but acquitted defendants on all other charges. Defendants
were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The Court of Appeals reversed defendants’ convictions and remanded for
new trials.14 The Court of Appeals majority concluded that the trial court denied
defendants a fair trial by denying their motion for separate trials or separate juries,
thus causing a Bruton error when defendants chose not to testify. Furthermore, the
Court of Appeals majority concluded that the admission of these statements in
violation of defendants’ confrontation rights was not harmless. The Court of
Appeals majority, however, failed to determine whether defendants properly
preserved the Bruton error for appeal, as required by People v Carines.15
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals majority did not cite or apply the proper
standard of review delineated in Carines for unpreserved, constitutional error. In
13
Defendants then rested. They presented no evidence or witnesses.
14
Unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 31,
2005 (Docket Nos. 247718, 247719).
15
460 Mich 750; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
6
applying a harmless error analysis, the majority gave little weight to the highly
self-incriminating nature of defendants’ statements.
The dissent, however, would have affirmed defendants’ convictions on the
basis that the offers of proof submitted by the defendants, unequivocally
representing that they would testify, waived any claim of error with regard to
separate trials or separate juries.
The prosecution sought leave to appeal in this Court. After directing the
parties to address whether the offers of proof by defendants waived any right to
claim a confrontation error, we heard oral argument on whether to grant the
application or take other peremptory action permitted by MCR 7.302(G)(1).16
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Constitutional questions, such as those concerning the right to confront
witnesses at trial, are reviewed de novo.17 The effect of an unpreserved claim of
constitutional error is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights.18 To
avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, a defendant must show actual
prejudice.19 Under the plain error rule, reversal is only warranted if the defendant
16
474 Mich 918 (2005).
17
People v Hickman, 470 Mich 602, 605; 684 NW2d 267 (2004).
18
People v McNally, 470 Mich 1, 5; 679 NW2d 301 (2004).
19
Id.7
is actually innocent or the error seriously undermined the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of the trial.20
ANALYSIS
In Bruton, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is
deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him when his
nontestifying codefendant’s statements implicating the defendant are introduced at
their joint trial.21 There is no error, however, if the codefendant testifies.22 The
Court held that giving limiting instructions to the jury that the statements can only
be used against the declarant is not sufficiently curative because “the risk that the
jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of
failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the
jury system cannot be ignored.”23
In Cruz v New York,24 a codefendant’s statements were admitted against the
defendant along with the defendant’s own confession. The Cruz Court revisited
the plurality opinion in Parker v Randolph.25 In Parker, which involved the same
20
Id.21
Bruton, supra at 126.
22
Id.23
Id. at 135.
24
481 US 186; 107 S Ct 1714; 95 L Ed 2d 162 (1987).
25
442 US 62; 99 S Ct 2132; 60 L Ed 2d 713 (1979).
8
factual predicate as Cruz, four justices determined that Bruton was inapplicable
and that there was no Sixth Amendment violation in cases where the defendant’s
own statement is admitted alongside the defendant’s nontestifying codefendant’s
incriminating statement. Concurring in part and concurring in the judgment,
Justice Blackmun stated that the admission of the codefendant’s statement was a
Sixth Amendment violation under Bruton, but any error was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.26 In Cruz, the Court adopted Justice Blackmun’s approach,
holding that a Confrontation Clause violation is not ameliorated when the
defendant’s confession is introduced at trial alongside a nontestifying
codefendant’s statement that inculpates the defendant.27 Thus, “where a
nontestifying codefendant’s confession incriminating the defendant is not directly
admissible against the defendant . . . the Confrontation Clause bars its admission at
their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed not to consider it against the
defendant, and even if the defendant’s own confession is admitted against him.”28
However, the Court found that the defendant’s own confession was relevant in a
manner applicable to the instant case. The Court held that the defendant’s
26
Id. at 77-81. Three justices dissented, and Justice Powell did not
participate in the case.
27
Cruz, supra at 193.
28
Id.9
confession “may be considered on appeal in assessing whether any Confrontation
Clause violation was harmless . . . .”29
We agree with the Court of Appeals that a Bruton error occurred in this
case.30 However, a Bruton error does not require automatic reversal of a
defendant’s conviction.31 The Supreme Court has recognized that a Bruton
violation is nevertheless subject to harmless error analysis,32 and in such a case a
defendant’s own confession “may be considered on appeal in assessing whether
any Confrontation Clause violation was harmless . . . .”33
29
Id. at 194.
30
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v Washington, 541 US
36; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004), buttresses the point that both
defendants’ confrontation rights were violated by the admission of the
nontestifying codefendant’s incriminating statements. The statements clearly fall
within the class of “testimonial” statements that are only admissible at trial if the
declarant is available for cross-examination, or if the declarant is unavailable to
testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. Id. at 59.
31
There is a “‘“very limited class of cases”’” involving “structural errors”
where errors are so “intrinsically harmful, without regard to their effect on the
outcome, so as to require automatic reversal.” People v Duncan, 462 Mich 47, 51,
52; 610 NW2d 551 (2000), quoting Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8; 119 S Ct
1827; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999), quoting Johnson v United States, 520 US 461, 468;
117 S Ct 1544; 137 L Ed 2d 718 (1997). This limited class of cases has never
been recognized by either the United States Supreme Court or this Court to
encompass Bruton errors. Because a Bruton error is not structural, it is subject to
harmless error review.
32
“We reject the notion that a Bruton error can never be harmless.” Brown
v United States, 411 US 223, 231; 93 S Ct 1565; 36 L Ed 2d 208 (1973).
33
Cruz, supra at 194.
10
To determine whether the Bruton error warrants reversal, we must first
identify the proper standard of review to be applied in this case. In People v
Carines,34 this Court discussed the governing standards of review for claims of
alleged error in criminal trial proceedings. The standard of review differs
depending on whether the error is constitutional in magnitude and whether the
defendant properly preserved the error at trial. As we have noted, a Bruton error is
of constitutional magnitude.
The other inquiry of consequence is whether the issue was preserved at
trial. In order to properly preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must “raise
objections at a time when the trial court has an opportunity to correct the error . . .
.”35 Preservation serves “the important need to encourage all trial participants to
seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around . . . .”36 In this case, defendants
never objected to the admission of the statements on Bruton grounds.37
Defendants also expressly approved the limiting instructions given to the jury
upon the introduction of each statement. Defendants were aware that the trial
court predicated its decision to have a joint trial in front of one jury on defendants’
34
Carines, supra.
35
People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 551; 520 NW2d 123 (1994).
36
Id. (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Carines, supra at
761.
37
Defendant Pipes did object to the introduction of one of his own
statements because he had refused to sign it. However, this objection did not raise
or preserve the Bruton error. See MRE 103(a)(1).
11
representations that they were going to testify at trial.38 When each defendant
exercised his right to not testify, thereby causing the Bruton error with regard to
the other defendant, neither defendant objected or moved for a mistrial on the
basis of the Bruton error. Rather, each defendant allowed the trial to proceed to a
verdict without ever affirmatively arguing that his confrontation rights had been
violated. By failing to object or move for a mistrial on Bruton grounds,
defendants failed to properly preserve the Bruton error for appeal.39 The Court of
Appeals erred in failing to determine whether the Bruton error was properly
preserved, and thereby failed to apply the proper standard of review. The Court of
Appeals should have reviewed this unpreserved, constitutional error for “plain
error that affected substantial rights” under Carines.40
38
Absent an express waiver by defendants of their Fifth Amendment rights,
we agree with the Court of Appeals majority that the trial court should not have
relied on defendants’ representations that they intended to testify at trial when
deciding whether to grant separate trials or juries. We reject the Court of Appeals
dissent’s argument that defendants waived the Bruton error. See People v Riley,
465 Mich 442, 449; 636 NW2d 514 (2001). Defendants’ silence in the face of a
Bruton error amounts to forfeiture, not waiver, because waiver requires “the
intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” People v Carter,
462 Mich 206, 215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).
39
Any other conclusion would be contrary to the rule that defendants
cannot “harbor error as an appellate parachute.” People v Carter, 462 Mich 206,
214; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). “The rule that issues for appeal must be preserved in
the record by notation of objection is a sound one,” id., and that rule is totally
eviscerated in situations, such as this, where defendants never address appealable
issues with the trial court.
40
Carines, supra at 774.
12
Under the plain error rule, defendants must show that (1) error occurred, (2)
the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected a
substantial right of the defendant.41 Generally, the third factor requires a showing
of prejudice—that the error affected the outcome of the trial proceedings.42
Defendants bear the burden of persuasion. The failure to establish a plain error
that affected a substantial right precludes a reviewing court from acting on such an
error. However, even if defendants show plain error that affected a substantial
right, reversal is only warranted “when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the
conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error seriously affect[ed]
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings . . . .” 43
In this case, the first two requirements are satisfied because the introduction
of the defendants’ statements that incriminated each other violated defendants’
Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. Once defendants exercised their rights not
to testify, admission of the statements was in direct contradiction of the rules laid
down in Bruton and Cruz.
The next question then is whether the Bruton error affected defendants’
substantial rights. Stated otherwise, the error must have been outcome
41
Carines, supra at 763.
42
Id.
43
Id. at 763 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); United States
v Olano, 507 US 725, 736; 113 S Ct 1770; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993); Johnson v
United States, 520 US 461, 469-470; 117 S Ct 1544; 137 L Ed 2d 718 (1997).
13
determinative. Relying on Bruton, Cruz, and this Court’s decision in People v
Banks,44 the Court of Appeals majority found that the Bruton error created
prejudice that required reversal. The Court of Appeals majority determined that
the evidence properly admitted against defendants was not overwhelming and that
the prejudicial effect of the codefendants’ statements against each other was
significant. Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that the Bruton error was not
harmless.
We disagree. The Court of Appeals failed to give sufficient weight to the
evidence that was properly admitted against each defendant, particularly the
proper admission of each defendant’s self-incriminating statements, and therefore
erroneously reversed defendants’ convictions. As held in Cruz, it was not error for
each defendant’s own confessions to be admitted against that defendant.45 The
only error was the introduction of the nontestifying codefendant’s incriminating
statement in a case where both defendants were tried before a single jury. While
44
438 Mich 408; 475 NW2d 769 (1991). In Banks, this Court held that a
Bruton error does not require reversal where “the properly admitted evidence of
guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant's admission
is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that
the improper use of the admission was harmless error.” Id. at 427 (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted). This “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
standard” would be the correct standard of review if the Bruton error was
preserved. Carines, supra at 774. However, this case deals with an unpreserved,
constitutional error, so the Court of Appeals should have reviewed for plain error
affecting substantial rights. Id.45
See also MRE 801(d)(2)(A), which provides for admission at trial of
party admissions.
14
the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a defendant’s confession “may be
considered on appeal in assessing whether any Confrontation Clause violation was
harmless,”46 it accorded no weight to the strongly self-inculpating nature of each
defendant’s confession.
Given each defendant’s statements, there is little question of actual
innocence with regard to the first-degree murder convictions. This Court has
recognized that “[o]ften . . . when the defendant confesses, there can be little doubt
concerning his guilt.”47 Indeed, “‘“the defendant’s own confession is probably the
most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him.”’”48
Because each defendant’s own statements were self-incriminating, we cannot
conclude that either defendant was prejudiced to the point that reversal is required
by the erroneous admission of his codefendant’s incriminating statements. Each
defendant individually admitted the territorial dispute with rival drug dealers, and
each defendant’s statements exposed the motive behind the homicidal shooting—
retaliation for shooting the green Jeep Cherokee. In his second statement to the
police, defendant Key explicitly admitted being the triggerman in the drive-by
shooting and using an AK-47 rifle. Although Pipes did not confess to being the
46
Cruz, supra at 194.
47
People v Dunn, 446 Mich 409, 424; 521 NW2d 255 (1994).
48
Id. at 423, quoting Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 296; 111 S Ct
1246; 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991) (White, J., with Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens,
JJ., concurring), quoting Bruton, supra at 139 (White, J., dissenting); Cruz, supra
at 195 (White, J., dissenting). (Original emphasis omitted; emphasis added.)
15
gunman, he admitted procuring a vehicle to transport defendant Key to the drive-
by shooting and admitted following Key in the Jeep in order to “watch [Key’s]
back.” Taken in isolation, these statements provide more than enough “damaging
evidence,” if believed by a jury, for the jury to find each defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt as a principal or as an aider or abettor of first-degree
premeditated murder.49
Furthermore, other probative and properly admitted evidence at trial
corroborated defendants’ confessions. One witness, who was on the front porch of
the victim’s residence at time of the shooting, testified that a green Jeep Cherokee
pulled in front of the house and someone opened fire from the passenger side of
the vehicle. The witness, who was a friend of defendant Key, testified that the
vehicle was similar to the vehicle Key was known to drive. Another witness, who
was walking toward the victim’s house, testified that he was approximately one
block away from the house when he heard gunfire. After the gunfire ceased, the
witness observed a green Jeep Cherokee headed toward him at a “kind of fast”
pace. From a distance of ten to 12 feet away, the witness positively identified both
defendants in the green Jeep Cherokee, driving in the opposite direction from the
scene of the crime. The witness was familiar with both defendants, and testified
that Key was known to drive a green Jeep Cherokee. Another witness, who was
49
See MCL 767.39. The jury was instructed regarding the elements
required to find guilt under an aiding or abetting theory.
16
on the side of the assaulted house at the time of the shooting, testified that he
observed a small blue car and a green Jeep Cherokee drive to the residence. The
witness ran toward the alley as soon as he observed a gun being pointed at the
residence from the small blue car. The witness did not observe the gunshots being
fired.
Key’s girlfriend testified that she owned a green Jeep Cherokee and that she
allowed defendant Key to drive her automobile “almost daily.” At the time of the
shooting, she was out of town and returned to find her vehicle missing.50 When
the witness retrieved her automobile from the police two weeks later, one window
was “shot out” and the car had two or three bullet holes in it.
An inconclusive amount of gunshot residue was found in the Jeep.
However, shell casings and bullet fragments collected at the scene of the crime
were consistent with an AK-47 rifle. Two Detroit Police officers testified that the
information provided to 911 operators implicated a green Jeep Cherokee with a
partial license plate number of 341. The officers testified that the “numbers were
inverted,” because the license plate sequence on the green Jeep Cherokee owned
by defendant Key’s girlfriend had a partial plate number of 431.
50
The witness testified that her automobile was parked at her residence
when she left town, and that defendant Key did not have permission to drive her
automobile on the weekend the shooting occurred. A second set of car keys was
missing from the witness’s residence.
17
This evidence, coupled with each defendant’s own highly self-inculpating
confession that was properly admitted against the defendant who made the
statements, provided strong evidence of guilt from which the jury could convict
these defendants. In light of this overwhelming evidence of guilt, the prejudicial
effect posed by the Bruton error was minimal, and therefore the Bruton error was
harmless.
Under plain error review, reversal is only appropriate when the plain error
that affected substantial rights “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of the proceedings” or when the defendant shows “actual innocence.”
In this case, for the same reasons that we find that defendants cannot show
prejudice, defendants cannot show that the error “seriously affected the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings” or that they are actually
innocent. The properly admitted evidence of guilt, including each defendant’s
own highly self-inculpating confession as properly used against him, was
sufficient to render the Bruton error harmless. Indeed, it would be the reversal of
convictions for error that did not affect the judgment that would seriously affect
“‘the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’”51
CONCLUSION
The Court of Appeals erred in reversing defendants’ first-degree murder
convictions. Defendants failed to object or move for a mistrial on Bruton grounds.
51
Carines, supra at 773, quoting Johnson, supra at 470.
18
Therefore, defendants failed to properly preserve the Bruton error for appeal. The
Court of Appeals should have reviewed this unpreserved, constitutional error for
plain error affecting defendants’ substantial rights. Because defendants failed to
show prejudice requiring reversal, actual innocence, or that the error seriously
affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial, reversal was not
warranted in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment
and reinstate defendants’ first-degree murder convictions.
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Clifford W. Taylor
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Stephen J. Markman
19
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 129152
CEDRIC PIPES,
Defendant-Appellee.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V No. 129154
JULIAN DALE KEY,
Defendant-Appellee.
CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting).
I believe that this case represents a textbook example of when separate
trials or separate juries should be used. I agree with the majority that Bruton v
United States, 391 US 123; 88 S Ct 1620; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968), was violated in
this case. Defendants’ Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were
violated when the statements of each defendant’s nontestifying codefendant were
heard by the single jury at defendants’ joint trial.
However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that this violation was
not plain error that affected defendants’ substantial rights. If the statements by
each codefendant are not considered, the evidence is not overwhelming. No
witness was able to identify who was actually responsible for the shooting. There
were varying accounts of the vehicles involved in the shooting. And the jury’s
uncertainty about who was the shooter is evident in the jury’s failure to convict
either defendant of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Further, the effect on the jury of hearing each codefendant’s unchallenged
statements was great. See, e.g., Bruton, supra at 135-136. Each defendant’s
statements minimized any role he may have played and maximized the other
defendant’s role in the shooting. Moreover, hearing these unchallenged and
inculpatory statements essentially rendered futile defendants’ questioning of police
officers, as well as contentions made during closing argument, that called into
question the validity of the alleged statements made. The jury was unlikely to
question the validity of the statements allegedly made when it heard that they were
supported to some degree by statements made by each defendant’s codefendant.
Accordingly, I believe the Bruton violation was plain error that affected each
defendant’s substantial rights, and I would affirm the decision of the Court of
Appeals and remand each case for its own new trial.
Michael F. Cavanagh
Marilyn Kelly
2