United States v. Conrad Williams and Wilbert McKenzie Conrad Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that jury was presumed to follow limiting instruction even though the evidence at trial “all but insured that a jury could identify the person referred to in [the declarant’s] confession as [the defendant]”
• instructing that “appropriate analysis to be used when applying the Bruton rule” is to “view the redacted confession in isolation from the other evidence introduced at trial”
• considering redacted confession “in isolation from the other evidence introduced at trial” to assess whether it incriminates defendant
• affirming admission of statement redacted to replace references to co-defendant with “another guy” or similar language with limiting in struction is deemed sufficient to dispel any Bruton problems
• “If the confession, when so viewed, does not incriminate the defendant, then it may be admitted with a proper limiting instruction even though other evidence in the case indicates that the neutral pronoun is in ■fact a reference to the defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).