Richardson v. Marsh

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Evidence

481 U.S. 200 (1987)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseCodefendant confessionsJoint trialsRedactionBrutonredacted confessionjoint trial

Facts

Respondent and her codefendant Williams were tried jointly for crimes arising from a robbery and killings at Scott's home. The State introduced Williams' confession, but redacted it to omit all reference to respondent and indeed any indication that anyone other than Williams and Martin participated; the jury was instructed not to consider it against respondent, and Williams did not testify. Respondent later testified and placed herself in the car described in the confession, denying that she heard the conversation in which Martin said he would have to kill the victims after the robbery. In closing, the prosecutor linked respondent to that portion of the confession, though respondent had not objected at trial.

Issue

Does the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted in Bruton, bar admission at a joint trial of a nontestifying codefendant's confession when the confession is redacted to eliminate the defendant's name and any reference to the defendant's existence, but the confession becomes incriminating when linked with other evidence introduced at trial?

Rule

The Confrontation Clause is not violated by admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession with a proper limiting instruction when the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant's name but any reference to the defendant's existence. Bruton applies to facially incriminating confessions, not to confessions that become incriminating only when linked with other evidence.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a joint murder trial in Cleveland, Noah Phelps does not testify. The prosecution introduces Noah's confession after editing it to say only that he and one other named accomplice planned the crime, removing any mention that a third participant existed; the judge instructs the jury to consider the confession only against Noah. Later, another witness testifies that Dana Ruiz was waiting outside in the getaway car described by other evidence.

Dana argues the confession violated her Confrontation Clause rights because the jury could connect her to it through the later testimony. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Bruton does not bar admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession when it is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant's name but any reference to the defendant's existence, and the jury receives a proper limiting instruction. Bruton remains limited to facially incriminating confessions, not those that become incriminating only when linked with other evidence.