richardson
marsh
argued
january
decided
april
respondent
benjamin
williams
charged
murder
robbery
assault
joint
trial
williams
confession
admitted
respondent
objection
confession
redacted
omit
reference
respondent
indeed
omit
indication
anyone
williams
third
accomplice
participated
crime
confession
williams
described
conversation
third
accomplice
drove
victims
home
accomplice
said
kill
victims
robbing
time
confession
admitted
jury
admonished
use
way
respondent
williams
testify
respondent
testimony
indicated
car
williams
third
accomplice
heard
conversation
respondent
insisted
intended
rob
kill
anyone
respondent
convicted
felony
murder
assault
commit
murder
michigan
appeals
affirmed
federal
district
denied
respondent
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
appeals
reversed
holding
respondent
entitled
new
trial
bruton
bruton
held
defendant
deprived
rights
confrontation
clause
codefendant
confession
naming
participant
crime
introduced
joint
trial
even
jury
instructed
consider
confession
codefendant
appeals
held
bruton
requires
result
codefendant
confession
redacted
omit
reference
defendant
defendant
nonetheless
linked
confession
evidence
properly
admitted
trial
held
confrontation
clause
violated
admission
nontestifying
codefendant
confession
proper
limiting
instruction
confession
redacted
eliminate
defendant
name
reference
existence
bruton
recognized
narrow
exception
almost
invariable
assumption
law
jurors
follow
instructions
situation
facially
incriminating
confession
nontestifying
codefendant
introduced
joint
trial
jury
instructed
consider
confession
codefendant
situation
bruton
explained
risk
jury
follow
instructions
great
consequences
failure
vital
defendant
jurors
assumed
incapable
obeying
instructions
two
important
distinctions
case
bruton
cause
fall
outside
narrow
exception
bruton
created
first
bruton
codefendant
confession
expressly
implicated
defendant
accomplice
whereas
confession
incriminating
face
became
linked
evidence
introduced
later
trial
necessity
linkage
involved
exist
overwhelming
probability
jurors
inability
disregard
incriminating
inferences
foundation
bruton
second
evidence
requiring
linkage
differs
evidence
incriminating
face
practical
effects
application
bruton
exception
produce
limited
facially
incriminating
confessions
bruton
complied
redaction
extended
confessions
incriminating
connection
possible
even
possible
predict
admissibility
confession
advance
trial
compliance
appeals
overbroad
reading
bruton
achieved
without
enormous
costs
criminal
justice
system
pp
reversed
remanded
scalia
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
blackmun
powell
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
joined
post
timothy
baughman
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
john
lawrence
robbins
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
trott
deputy
solicitor
general
bryson
steven
whalen
appointment
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
bruton
held
defendant
deprived
rights
confrontation
clause
nontestifying
codefendant
confession
naming
participant
crime
introduced
joint
trial
even
jury
instructed
consider
confession
codefendant
today
consider
whether
bruton
requires
result
codefendant
confession
redacted
omit
reference
defendant
defendant
nonetheless
linked
confession
evidence
properly
admitted
trial
respondent
clarissa
marsh
benjamin
williams
kareem
martin
charged
assaulting
cynthia
knighton
murdering
son
koran
aunt
ollie
scott
respondent
williams
tried
jointly
objection
martin
fugitive
time
trial
trial
knighton
testified
follows
evening
october
son
scott
home
respondent
boyfriend
martin
visited
brief
conversation
living
room
respondent
announced
come
pick
something
scott
rose
couch
martin
pulled
gun
pointed
scott
knightons
said
someone
gotten
killed
scott
knew
something
respondent
immediately
walked
front
door
peered
peephole
doorbell
rang
respondent
opened
door
williams
walked
carrying
gun
williams
passed
respondent
asked
money
martin
forced
scott
upstairs
williams
went
kitchen
leaving
respondent
alone
knightons
knighton
son
attempted
flee
respondent
grabbed
knighton
held
williams
returned
williams
ordered
knightons
lie
floor
went
upstairs
assist
martin
respondent
left
alone
knightons
stood
front
door
occasionally
peered
peephole
minutes
later
martin
williams
scott
came
stairs
martin
handed
paper
grocery
bag
respondent
martin
williams
forced
scott
knightons
basement
martin
shot
cynthia
knighton
survived
addition
knighton
testimony
state
introduced
respondent
objection
confession
given
williams
police
shortly
arrest
confession
redacted
omit
reference
respondent
indeed
omit
indication
anyone
martin
williams
participated
crime
confession
largely
corroborated
knighton
account
activities
persons
respondent
house
addition
confession
described
conversation
williams
martin
drove
scott
home
according
williams
martin
said
kill
victims
robbery
time
confession
admitted
jury
admonished
use
way
respondent
williams
testify
state
rested
respondent
took
stand
testified
october
lost
money
martin
intended
use
buy
drugs
martin
upset
suggested
respondent
borrow
money
scott
worked
past
martin
respondent
picked
williams
drove
scott
house
drive
respondent
sitting
backseat
knew
martin
williams
talking
hear
conversation
radio
speaker
right
ear
martin
respondent
admitted
home
respondent
short
conversation
scott
asked
loan
martin
pulled
gun
respondent
walked
door
see
car
saw
williams
opened
door
respondent
testified
robbery
feel
free
leave
scared
flee
said
know
prevented
knightons
escaping
admitted
taking
bag
martin
said
martin
williams
took
victims
basement
left
house
without
bag
respondent
insisted
possessed
prior
knowledge
martin
williams
armed
heard
conversation
anyone
harmed
intended
rob
kill
anyone
closing
argument
prosecutor
admonished
jury
use
williams
confession
respondent
later
argument
however
linked
respondent
portion
williams
confession
describing
conversation
martin
car
respondent
attorney
object
closing
arguments
judge
instructed
jury
williams
confession
considered
respondent
jury
convicted
respondent
two
counts
felony
murder
perpetration
armed
robbery
one
count
assault
intent
commit
murder
michigan
appeals
affirmed
unpublished
opinion
people
marsh
michigan
denied
leave
appeal
respondent
filed
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
pursuant
alleged
conviction
supported
sufficient
evidence
introduction
williams
confession
joint
trial
violated
rights
confrontation
clause
district
denied
petition
civ
action
ed
appeals
sixth
circuit
reversed
appeals
held
determining
whether
bruton
bars
admission
nontestifying
codefendant
confession
must
assess
confession
inculpatory
value
examining
face
confession
also
evidence
introduced
trial
williams
account
conversation
car
direct
evidence
respondent
knew
entering
scott
house
victims
robbed
killed
respondent
testimony
placed
car
light
paucity
evidence
malice
prosecutor
linkage
respondent
statement
car
closing
argument
admission
williams
confession
powerfully
incriminating
respondent
respect
critical
element
intent
thus
appeals
concluded
confrontation
clause
violated
granted
certiorari
sixth
circuit
decision
conflicts
courts
appeals
declined
adopt
evidentiary
linkage
contextual
implication
approach
bruton
questions
see
belle
en
banc
ii
confrontation
clause
sixth
amendment
extended
fourteenth
amendment
guarantees
right
criminal
defendant
confronted
witnesses
right
confrontation
includes
right
witnesses
see
pointer
texas
therefore
two
defendants
tried
jointly
pretrial
confession
one
admitted
unless
confessing
defendant
takes
stand
ordinarily
witness
whose
testimony
introduced
joint
trial
considered
witness
defendant
jury
instructed
consider
testimony
codefendant
accords
almost
invariable
assumption
law
jurors
follow
instructions
francis
franklin
applied
many
varying
contexts
example
harris
new
york
held
statements
elicited
defendant
violation
miranda
arizona
introduced
impeach
defendant
credibility
even
though
inadmissible
evidence
guilt
long
jury
instructed
accordingly
similarly
spencer
texas
held
evidence
defendant
prior
criminal
convictions
introduced
purpose
sentence
enhancement
long
jury
instructed
used
purposes
determining
guilt
accord
marshall
lonberger
see
also
tennessee
street
instruction
consider
accomplice
incriminating
confession
purpose
assessing
truthfulness
defendant
claim
confession
coerced
watkins
sowders
instruction
consider
erroneously
admitted
eyewitness
identification
evidence
walder
instruction
consider
unlawfully
seized
physical
evidence
assessing
defendant
credibility
bruton
however
recognized
narrow
exception
principle
held
defendant
deprived
sixth
amendment
right
confrontation
facially
incriminating
confession
nontestifying
codefendant
introduced
joint
trial
even
jury
instructed
consider
confession
codefendant
said
contexts
risk
jury
follow
instructions
great
consequences
failure
vital
defendant
practical
human
limitations
jury
system
ignored
context
presented
powerfully
incriminating
extrajudicial
statements
codefendant
stands
accused
defendant
deliberately
spread
jury
joint
trial
citations
omitted
necessity
linkage
involved
less
valid
generalization
jury
likely
obey
instruction
disregard
evidence
specific
testimony
defendant
helped
commit
crime
vivid
inferential
incrimination
hence
difficult
thrust
mind
moreover
regard
explicit
statement
issue
plain
simply
whether
jury
possibly
expected
forget
assessing
defendant
guilt
whereas
regard
inferential
incrimination
judge
instruction
may
well
successful
dissuading
jury
entering
onto
path
inference
first
place
incrimination
forget
short
may
always
simple
members
jury
obey
instruction
disregard
incriminating
inference
exist
overwhelming
probability
inability
foundation
bruton
exception
general
rule
even
significantly
evidence
requiring
linkage
differs
evidence
incriminating
face
practical
effects
application
bruton
exception
produce
limited
facially
incriminating
confessions
bruton
complied
redaction
possibility
suggested
opinion
extended
confessions
incriminating
connection
possible
even
possible
predict
admissibility
confession
advance
trial
contextual
implication
doctrine
articulated
appeals
presumably
require
trial
judge
assess
end
trial
whether
light
evidence
nontestifying
codefendant
confession
powerfully
incriminating
new
separate
trial
required
defendant
obviously
lends
manipulation
defense
even
without
manipulation
result
numerous
mistrials
appeals
might
suggested
consequences
reduced
conducting
pretrial
hearing
prosecution
defense
reveal
evidence
plan
introduce
enabling
assess
compliance
bruton
ex
ante
rather
ex
post
approach
even
feasible
federal
rules
doubtful
see
fed
rule
crim
proc
time
consuming
obviously
far
foolproof
one
might
say
course
certain
way
assuring
compliance
try
defendants
separately
whenever
incriminating
statement
one
sought
used
facile
remedy
might
seem
joint
trials
play
vital
role
criminal
justice
system
accounting
almost
federal
criminal
trials
past
five
years
memorandum
david
cook
administrative
office
courts
library
available
clerk
case
file
many
joint
trials
example
involving
large
conspiracies
import
distribute
illegal
drugs
involve
dozen
codefendants
confessions
one
defendants
commonplace
indeed
probability
confession
increases
number
participants
since
reduced
assurance
protected
silence
impair
efficiency
fairness
criminal
justice
system
require
cases
joint
crimes
incriminating
statements
exist
prosecutors
bring
separate
proceedings
presenting
evidence
requiring
victims
witnesses
repeat
inconvenience
sometimes
trauma
testifying
randomly
favoring
defendants
advantage
knowing
prosecution
case
beforehand
joint
trials
generally
serve
interests
justice
avoiding
inconsistent
verdicts
enabling
accurate
assessment
relative
culpability
advantages
sometimes
operate
defendant
benefit
even
apart
tactical
considerations
joint
trials
generally
serve
interests
justice
avoiding
scandal
inequity
inconsistent
verdicts
way
assuring
compliance
expansive
bruton
rule
forgo
use
codefendant
confessions
price
also
high
since
confessions
merely
desirable
essential
society
compelling
interest
finding
convicting
punishing
violate
law
moran
burbine
citation
omitted
rule
juries
presumed
follow
instructions
pragmatic
one
rooted
less
absolute
certitude
presumption
true
belief
represents
reasonable
practical
accommodation
interests
state
defendant
criminal
justice
process
precise
facts
bruton
involving
facially
incriminating
confession
found
accommodation
inadequate
discussion
shows
calculus
changes
confessions
name
defendant
issue
continue
apply
bruton
found
rationale
validly
applies
see
cruz
new
york
ante
decline
extend
hold
confrontation
clause
violated
admission
nontestifying
codefendant
confession
proper
limiting
instruction
confession
redacted
eliminate
defendant
name
reference
existence
present
case
however
prosecutor
sought
undo
effect
limiting
instruction
urging
jury
use
williams
confession
evaluating
respondent
case
see
supra
remand
consider
whether
light
respondent
failure
object
prosecutor
comments
error
serve
basis
granting
writ
habeas
corpus
see
wainwright
sykes
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
sunday
evening
october
girl
friend
house
moss
highland
park
received
phone
call
friend
mine
named
kareem
martin
said
looking
james
coleman
call
tom
asked
wanted
go
robbery
said
okay
said
pick
minutes
later
kareem
came
black
monte
carlo
car
got
car
kareem
told
going
stick
crib
told
place
numbers
house
kareem
said
place
kareem
said
take
robbery
kareem
big
silver
gun
gave
long
barrelled
sic
revolver
drove
house
parked
car
across
big
street
near
house
plan
wait
car
front
house
move
car
across
big
street
want
anybody
see
car
okay
kareem
went
house
went
inside
couple
minutes
later
moved
car
went
house
entered
kareem
older
lady
dining
room
little
boy
another
younger
woman
sitting
couch
front
room
pulled
pistol
told
younger
woman
little
boy
lay
floor
kareem
took
older
lady
upstairs
pistol
also
stayed
downstairs
two
people
floor
kareem
took
lady
upstairs
went
upstairs
lady
laying
bed
room
left
get
stairs
lady
already
given
us
two
bags
full
money
ever
got
upstairs
kareem
thought
money
went
upstairs
kareem
started
searching
rooms
find
money
came
downstairs
kareem
came
lady
said
let
go
let
go
kareem
said
kareem
took
two
ladies
little
boy
basement
left
go
car
went
car
got
back
seat
couple
minutes
later
kareem
came
car
said
thinks
girl
still
living
still
moving
bullets
asked
come
go
basement
said
shit
like
dropped
back
girl
house
highland
park
supposed
get
together
today
get
share
robbery
counted
money
app
pp
prosecutor
said
important
light
respondent
testimony
says
kareem
drives
benjamin
williams
home
picks
go
thing
says
well
sitting
back
seat
car
hear
conversation
going
front
seat
kareem
mr
williams
hear
conversation
radio
loud
asked
sic
whether
reasonable
say
say
hear
conversation
said
know
conversation
hear
radio
admits
heard
conversation
admits
plan
guilty
least
armed
robbery
ca
tell
dissent
mistaken
believing
assum
williams
confession
incriminate
respondent
post
contrary
premise
discussion
respondent
harmed
williams
confession
jury
disobeyed
instructions
disagreement
pertains
whether
confession
incriminated
respondent
whether
trial
properly
assume
jury
use
dissent
notes
cases
involved
joint
trials
conducted
bruton
decided
compliance
rule
case
issue
appear
originated
state
post
concludes
ederal
prosecutors
seem
little
difficulty
implementing
bruton
dissent
believes
must
implemented
ibid
since
cases
question
number
handful
fact
happened
state
cases
may
signify
nothing
many
times
state
prosecutions
federal
assuredly
basis
believe
federal
prosecutors
applying
dissent
interpretation
bruton
indeed
contrary
proposition
well
harmfulness
interpretation
federal
law
enforcement
efforts
suggested
fact
solicitor
general
appeared
amicus
urge
reversal
substantially
reasons
given
see
brief
amicus
curiae
express
opinion
admissibility
confession
defendant
name
replaced
symbol
neutral
pronoun
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
dissenting
rationale
decision
bruton
applies
without
exception
inadmissible
confessions
powerfully
incriminating
today
however
draws
distinction
constitutional
magnitude
confessions
directly
identify
defendant
rely
inculpatory
effect
factual
legal
relationships
contents
evidence
jury
even
jury
indirect
inference
defendant
guilt
based
inadmissible
confession
much
devastating
defendant
case
inference
direct
reference
codefendant
confession
requires
exclusion
latter
statement
illogical
result
demeans
values
protected
confrontation
clause
moreover
neither
reason
experience
supports
argument
consistent
application
rationale
bruton
case
impose
unacceptable
burdens
administration
justice
basic
premise
confrontation
clause
certain
kinds
hearsay
damaging
suspect
yet
difficult
discount
jurors
trusted
give
evidence
minimal
weight
logically
deserves
whatever
instructions
trial
judge
might
give
constitutionally
mandated
skepticism
undergirds
bruton
holding
equally
applicable
case
framed
issue
bruton
whether
conviction
defendant
joint
trial
set
aside
although
jury
instructed
codefendant
confession
inculpating
defendant
disregarded
determining
guilt
innocence
answered
question
affirmative
noting
sixth
amendment
violated
powerfully
incriminating
extrajudicial
statements
codefendant
stands
accused
defendant
deliberately
spread
jury
joint
trial
today
nevertheless
draws
line
codefendant
confessions
expressly
name
defendant
relies
presumption
latter
category
less
valid
generalization
jury
likely
obey
instruction
disregard
evidence
ante
agree
read
bruton
require
exclusion
codefendant
confessions
mention
defendant
confessions
may
significant
impact
defendant
case
others
presume
must
jurors
give
full
vigorous
attention
every
witness
item
evidence
acts
listening
seeing
sometimes
lead
path
inference
indeed
tacitly
acknowledges
point
speculates
judge
instruction
may
dissuade
jury
making
inferences
also
concedes
probability
occurrence
arguing
overwhelming
probability
jurors
unable
disregard
incriminating
inference
ibid
bruton
always
required
trial
judges
answer
question
whether
particular
confession
powerfully
incriminating
basis
follow
analysis
whether
defendant
actually
named
codefendant
instructing
jury
consider
benjamin
williams
confession
clarissa
marsh
failed
guarantee
level
certainty
required
confrontation
clause
uncertainty
arose
prosecution
case
made
clear
time
williams
statement
introduced
statement
prove
powerfully
incriminating
respondent
well
williams
absolutely
doubt
spreading
williams
carefully
edited
confession
jury
intolerably
interfered
jury
solemn
duty
treat
statement
nothing
meaningless
sounds
consideration
marsh
guilt
innocence
time
williams
confession
introduced
evidence
already
established
respondent
two
men
committed
armed
robbery
course
two
men
killed
two
persons
shot
third
ante
sharp
dispute
however
question
whether
respondent
intended
commit
robbery
murder
foreseeable
result
knew
two
men
planned
quantum
evidence
admissible
respondent
sufficient
establish
intent
hence
support
conviction
appeals
explained
issue
whether
evidence
sufficient
show
marsh
aided
abetted
assault
specific
intent
murder
knighton
knowledge
martin
specific
intent
marsh
case
presents
much
closer
question
issue
williams
testimony
indicating
harbored
intent
murder
knighton
showing
heard
martin
statements
regarding
need
hurt
take
victims
addition
testimony
placing
basement
scene
shootings
evidence
indicate
viewed
light
favorable
prosecution
aware
williams
martin
armed
served
guard
lookout
door
prevented
attempted
escape
knighton
given
paper
bag
thought
contain
proceeds
robbery
evidence
also
indicates
marsh
knew
scott
supporting
inference
marsh
allowed
martin
gain
entrance
close
question
believe
evidence
presented
time
motion
sufficient
survive
motion
directed
verdict
emphasis
omitted
facts
case
admittedly
different
bruton
williams
statement
directly
mention
respondent
thus
instead
incriminating
face
ante
became
considered
connection
evidence
presented
jury
difference
facts
bruton
facts
case
eliminate
common
substantial
constitutionally
unacceptable
risk
jury
resolving
critical
issue
respondent
may
relied
impermissible
evidence
ii
facts
joint
trials
conserve
prosecutorial
resources
diminish
inconvenience
witnesses
avoid
delays
administration
criminal
justice
well
known
long
time
see
lane
quoting
bruton
equally
well
known
joint
trials
create
special
risks
prejudice
one
defendants
risks
often
make
necessary
grant
severances
see
bruton
fed
rule
crim
proc
relief
prejudicial
joinder
government
argues
costs
requiring
prosecution
choose
severance
offering
codefendant
confession
joint
trial
outweigh
benefits
defendant
brief
amicus
curiae
scales
justice
however
considerations
fairness
normally
outweigh
administrative
concerns
bruton
case
argued
normal
benefits
joint
proceedings
sacrificed
requiring
separate
trials
order
use
confession
declarant
see
endorsed
answer
argument
judge
lehman
new
york
appeals
previously
made
dissenting
opinion
people
fisher
still
adhere
rule
accused
entitled
confrontation
witnesses
right
destroy
rule
past
regarded
fundamental
principle
jurisprudence
legalistic
formula
required
judge
jury
may
consider
admissions
party
join
secure
greater
speed
economy
convenience
administration
law
price
fundamental
principles
constitutional
liberty
price
high
also
expresses
concern
trial
judges
unable
determine
whether
codefendant
confession
directly
mention
defendant
inadmissible
create
substantial
risk
unfair
prejudice
cases
trial
judge
comply
dictates
bruton
postponing
decision
admissibility
confession
prosecution
rests
time
potentially
inculpatory
effect
evaluated
light
government
entire
case
expresses
concern
rule
enable
manipulation
defense
see
ante
presumably
means
defense
might
tailor
evidence
make
sure
confession
directly
mention
defendant
deemed
powerfully
incriminating
viewed
light
prosecution
entire
case
practical
matter
believe
many
defense
lawyers
deliberately
pursue
strategy
manipulating
evidence
order
enhance
prejudicial
impact
codefendant
confession
moreover
great
many
experienced
competent
trial
judges
throughout
nation
fully
capable
managing
cases
supervising
counsel
order
avoid
problems
seem
insurmountable
appellate
judges
sometimes
distracted
illogical
distinctions
irrelevant
statistics
respectfully
dissent
bruton
stewart
concurring
emphasis
original
judge
learned
hand
justice
frankfurter
also
recognize
admission
williams
confession
even
limiting
instructions
placed
great
strain
upon
jury
ability
exclude
evidence
consideration
respondent
innocence
guilt
noted
bruton
judge
hand
addressed
subject
several
times
limiting
instruction
said
recommendation
jury
mental
gymnastic
beyond
powers
anybody
else
nash
nobody
indeed
fail
doubt
whether
caution
effective
whether
usually
practical
result
let
hearsay
gottfried
indeed
hard
believe
jury
matter
practice
observe
admonition
delli
paoli
judge
hand
referred
instruction
placebo
medically
defined
medicinal
lie
government
windfall
jury
influenced
evidence
defendant
matter
law
consider
put
minds
delhi
paoli
dissenting
opinion
indeed
doubt
codefendant
confessions
expressly
mention
defendant
nevertheless
need
excluded
bruton
prejudicial
assumes
confession
incriminate
respondent
time
confession
introduced
disagree
cynthia
knighton
already
testified
respondent
kareem
martin
arrived
victims
residence
together
respondent
admitted
williams
house
minutes
later
statement
williams
said
drove
house
parked
car
across
big
street
near
house
plan
wait
car
front
house
move
car
across
big
street
want
anybody
see
car
okay
kareem
went
house
went
inside
couple
minutes
later
moved
car
went
house
ante
worth
noting
dissenting
opinion
bruton
regard
decision
limited
codefendant
confessions
expressly
implicating
defendant
suppose
necessary
exclude
extrajudicial
confessions
unless
portions
implicate
defendants
declarant
effectively
deleted
effective
deletion
probably
require
omission
direct
indirect
inculpations
codefendants
also
statement
employed
defendants
identity
otherwise
established
emphasis
added
white
dissenting
see
memorandum
david
cook
administrative
office
courts
library
available
clerk
case
file
see
memorandum
david
cook
administrative
office
courts
library
mar
available
clerk
case
file
establishing
figures
cited
memorandum
february
cited
ante
carry
information
whatever
number
trials
codefendant
confession
offered
admitted
expresses
apparently
fear
evenhanded
application
bruton
jeopardize
use
joint
trials
proposition
rests
unsupported
assumption
number
powerfully
incriminating
confessions
name
defendant
large
evaluated
basis
proceeds
ostensible
administrative
outrages
separate
trials
necessary
contending
unwise
compel
prosecutors
bring
separate
proceedings
presenting
evidence
requiring
victims
witnesses
repeat
inconvenience
sometimes
trauma
testifying
randomly
favoring
defendants
advantage
knowing
prosecution
case
ante
speculation
also
floats
unattached
anchor
reality
since
likelihood
one
defendants
joint
trial
confessed
fairly
remote
prospect
presenting
evidence
nothing
rhetorical
flourish
worst
typical
case
two
trials
may
required
one
confessing
defendant
another
nonconfessing
defendant
defendants
even
category
presumably
confessing
defendants
likely
candidates
plea
bargaining
except
williams
confession
prosecutor
closing
argument
separately
considered
remand
paucity
evidence
connecting
respondent
plan
discussed
car
way
victims
home
appeals
thus
unquestionably
correct
concluding
violation
confrontation
clause
case
harmless
error