People v. Washington, B270506

Background

Defendant Michael Shane Washington, a Bloods-affiliated gang member, shot and killed a 20-year-old at Avalon Gardens after asking “Where you from?”; he was arrested minutes later with a gun and wearing gang colors.
Two codefendants, Keon Scott and Kevin Kendricks, were recorded in jail cell conversations (surreptitiously recorded) making statements implicating themselves and Washington; snippets were admitted at trial against Scott and Kendricks with a jury instruction not to consider them against Washington.
Washington testified at trial admitting he shot but claiming self-defense; jury convicted him of first degree murder and found firearm and gang enhancements true; sentenced to 51 years to life.
On appeal Washington argued trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to sever his trial from Scott and Kendricks, asserting Aranda/Bruton and due process grounds plus statutory severance under Penal Code §1098.
The Court addressed whether Crawford’s limitation of the Confrontation Clause to testimonial statements narrowed the Aranda/Bruton rule and whether due process independently barred admission of a codefendant’s non‑testimonial confession at a joint trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crawford’s testimonial limitation narrows Aranda/Bruton	People: Aranda/Bruton rests on Confrontation Clause and should be applied consistent with Crawford	Washington: Aranda/Bruton should reach non‑testimonial codefendant confessions because they are equally prejudicial	Court: Yes — Aranda/Bruton is confined to testimonial statements; Crawford narrowed its reach
Whether admission of non‑testimonial jailhouse statements violated due process	People: Non‑testimonial jail talk is not as unreliable as coerced confessions and due process does not bar its admission	Washington: Due process should bar jury exposure because jurors cannot ignore incriminating codefendant statements	Court: No — declined to create a due‑process Aranda/Bruton extension for non‑testimonial statements
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to sever under §1098	People: Joint trial appropriate; recordings were admissible and jury instructions mitigated risk; severance not reasonably likely to change outcome	Washington: Failure to move to sever was deficient and prejudicial	Court: No — counsel not ineffective; no reasonable probability of a better outcome at separate trial
Whether the jailhouse conversation would have been excluded at a separate trial	People: Statements are admissible as declarations against interest and thus would be admissible against Washington even at separate trial	Washington: People conceded admissibility only against codefendants, so cannot now rely on admissibility against him	Court: The conversation is admissible as declarations against penal interest and outcome stands

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent prior cross‑examination)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (codefendant’s confession implicating defendant at joint trial can violate Confrontation Clause)
People v. Aranda, 63 Cal.2d 518 (1965) (California rule on redaction / severance when codefendant confession implicates defendant)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (presumption that jury follows limiting instructions; limits on Bruton)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (test for whether statements are testimonial; ‘‘primary purpose’’ inquiry)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (due process problem where jury both decides voluntariness and then must disregard confession)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (pre‑Crawford reliability test for Confrontation Clause)
People v. Coffman and Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 1 (2004) (standards for severance under §1098 and multifactor test)
People v. Duarte, 24 Cal.4th 603 (2000) (declarations against penal interest and reliability requirement)