Terry Brown v. Superintendent Greene SCI
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15336
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Victim Mary Edmond was shot and died; co-defendants Antonio Lambert (defendant) and Miguel Garcia were tried jointly; Garcia gave a recorded statement that implicated himself and identified the shooter, and Garcia did not testify at trial.
- Trial judge admitted a redacted version of Garcia’s statement replacing Lambert’s name with phrases like “the other guy,” and instructed the jury it was evidence only against Garcia.
- During closing argument, the prosecutor referred to Lambert by name while recounting parts of Garcia’s redacted statement (e.g., that Lambert went to Garcia’s house and brandished the gun), effectively “unmasking” the redaction.
- Defense moved for mistrial; judge denied it and later repeated limiting instructions without highlighting the prosecutor’s slip. Jurors requested the confession during deliberations and were read the redacted version.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the conviction, relying on Frazier; the Superior Court had ordered a new trial. Lambert sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- Third Circuit held prosecutor’s closing argument violated the Confrontation Clause under Bruton and its progeny and that the error was not harmless given weak independent evidence against Lambert (chiefly Cheatham’s inconsistent and impaired testimony).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lambert) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redacted codefendant confession and joint trial violated Confrontation Clause absent severance | Redaction insufficient if jury effectively learns identity; Bruton requires severance or exclusion | Redaction cured problem; limiting instructions suffice; Frazier permits some prosecutor remarks | Court did not decide severance claim; focused on prosecutorial unmasking and found Bruton protections applicable |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument that identified Lambert as the person in the redacted confession violated Bruton | Prosecutor’s remarks effectively negated redactions and deprived Lambert of right to confront and cross-examine Garcia | Remarks were inadvertent, contextual, and tied to argument about Garcia’s credibility; limiting instruction cures error (per Frazier) | Prosecutor’s unmasking violated Bruton; intent irrelevant; limiting instructions could not cure here |
| Whether the Confrontation Clause error was harmless | The confession was central to the Commonwealth’s case; independent witness (Cheatham) was unreliable; error had substantial and injurious effect | Jury convicted both defendants and thus likely relied on admissible evidence; unmasking was limited to argument about Garcia, not Lambert | Error was not harmless given centrality of confession and weaknesses in other evidence; relief warranted |
| Remedy on habeas review | Petitioner sought new trial or release | Commonwealth argued state court properly applied Supreme Court precedent and error was harmless | Third Circuit granted habeas relief and remanded with directions to release or retry within a reasonable time |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (admission of unredacted confession of non-testifying codefendant violates Confrontation Clause and limiting instructions may be insufficient)
- Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969) (paraphrase of expected testimony in opening may be cured by limiting instruction in some contexts)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redacted confession that omits any reference to codefendant’s existence does not violate Confrontation Clause absent prosecutor undoing limiting instruction)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (redaction that leaves obvious deletion or blank is functionally equivalent to naming the defendant and triggers Bruton)