Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Dept. of L&I

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that simply replacing a codefendant’s name with a symbol or a blacked-out space is insufficient to wrest an inculpatory statement from Bruton’s precedential orbit
• holding that “statements that, despite redaction, obviously refer directly to someone, often obviously the defendant” allow the jury to make sufficient inferences of an accusation to violate Bruton
• holding that a properly instructed jury may not consider the redacted confession of a co-defendant which “obviously referred] directly to someone, often obviously the defendant”
• holding that a redaction that replaces a defendant’s name with an obvious indication of deletion, such as a blank space, still falls within Bruton’s protective rule
• holding that confession which substituted blanks and the word \delete\ for the defendant's proper name falls within the class of statements to which Bruton 's protections apply
• recognizing that proper modification incriminates inferentially and does not point directly to defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).