Vazquez v. Wilson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \it is an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to hold that [the] use [of generic terms] always will be sufficient\ to satisfy Bruton (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that \it is an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to hold that [the] use [of generic terms] always will be sufficient\ to satisfy Bruton (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted)
• concluding the Bruton errors were prejudicial because the only direct evidence implicating the defendant as the shooter was the improperly admitted codefendant’s statement and “no witness at the trial [testified seeing the defendant] fire a weapon”
• finding violation where statement indicated that there were only two possible shooters, there were only two men on trial, and defendant’s name was replaced with “my boy” or “other guy”
• reversingconvictions where the references to the two accomplices were replaced with the terms “my boy” and “the other guy” because, in context, these terms unmistakably referred to the co-defendant on trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).