You are here: / / CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN...
,

CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the co-defendant’s redacted admission should not have been admitted in evidence:

… [W]e agree with the defendant that, under the instant circumstances, the Supreme Court’s admission of codefendant Jason Villanueva’s redacted statement to the police violated the rule articulated in Bruton v United States (391 US 123), because the subject redaction would have caused the jurors to “realize that the confession refers specifically to the defendant” or to one of the other nonconfessing codefendants … . In addition, the error was not harmless. “[I]t cannot be said that ‘there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted [statement] contributed to the conviction'” … , given that the statement was inconsistent with the defendant’s justification defense, and the court failed to give the jurors a proper limiting instruction to only consider the statement against Villanueva. People v Casares, 2020 NY Slip Op 05520, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THEY WERE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION PROPERLY INVALIDATED AND THE CANDIDATE’S NAME WAS PROPERLY STRUCK FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOT, THE CANDIDATE’S NAME APPEARED ON DESIGNATING PETITIONS FOR TWO DIFFERENT PUBLIC OFFICES WHICH PRESUMPTIVELY MISLED THE PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Summons and Complaint after the Statute of Limitations Has Run
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILITY PLEA AND FOR FAILING TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
FURTHER LAWSUITS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE PROPERLY PROHIBITED BY THE COURT.
DSS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP, TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REVERSED.
Contractual-Indemnification Cross Claim by Building Owners Against the Elevator Maintenance Company Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Relevant Criteria Explained
TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NATURE OF AN INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS...