Legal Definitions - Bruton error

Bruton error

A Bruton error occurs in a criminal trial when a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses is violated. This happens specifically when two or more defendants are tried together, and one defendant's confession is introduced as evidence. If this confession implicates not only the person who made it but also a codefendant, and the confessing defendant does not testify in court (meaning they cannot be cross-examined), then admitting that confession against the codefendant is a Bruton error. This is true even if the judge instructs the jury to only consider the confession against the person who made it, because of the high risk that the jury will struggle to disregard the confession's implications for the other defendant.

The core issue is the right of confrontation, which allows a defendant to question (cross-examine) witnesses who provide testimony or evidence against them. When a codefendant's confession implicates another defendant but the codefendant doesn't testify, the implicated defendant loses the opportunity to challenge that statement, violating their constitutional rights.

Examples:

• Example 1: Bank Robbery Case
  Imagine two individuals, Mark and Sarah, are on trial together for bank robbery. During the police investigation, Mark confessed, stating, "Sarah and I planned the robbery for weeks, and she drove the getaway car." At their joint trial, Mark decides not to testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. If the prosecutor introduces Mark's confession into evidence, it would constitute a Bruton error regarding Sarah. Sarah cannot cross-examine Mark about his statement, directly implicating her in the crime, thus violating her right to confront the evidence against her.
• Example 2: Drug Trafficking Conspiracy
  Consider a scenario where David and Emily are charged with drug trafficking. Emily is arrested first and, in an attempt to get a lighter sentence, confesses to the police, saying, "David supplied all the drugs, and I just helped him package them." Emily's confession is recorded. Later, at their joint trial, Emily refuses to take the stand. If the prosecution plays Emily's recorded confession to the jury, David's constitutional rights would be violated. He cannot question Emily about her claims that he supplied the drugs, which directly implicates him in the more serious aspects of the conspiracy.
• Example 3: Arson Investigation
  Suppose two friends, Liam and Chloe, are accused of setting fire to an abandoned building. Liam, under interrogation, tells detectives, "Chloe dared me to do it, and she even poured the gasoline while I lit the match." Liam's statement is documented. At their combined trial, Liam chooses not to testify. If the prosecution presents Liam's statement to the jury, it would be a Bruton error concerning Chloe. Chloe would be unable to cross-examine Liam about his assertion that she dared him and participated in pouring the gasoline, thereby denying her the opportunity to challenge this incriminating evidence directly.