The People v. Assad Cedeno, 27 N.Y.3d 110

Background

Defendant was tried jointly with three codefendants for a fatal subway stabbing during a gang fight; charges included murder, gang assault, assault and weapons counts.
Codefendant Jason Villanueva gave a written statement to police describing Latin Kings stabbing and punching the victim; the People produced a redacted version at trial with large blank spaces where identifying descriptors appeared.
At trial three eyewitnesses identified defendant as a stabber; two witnesses had known biases (one sought revenge against Latin Kings; one testified in exchange for a parole-board letter). A detective also testified (over objection sustained) that defendant’s girlfriend called him “Bambino,” a nickname used by two eyewitnesses.
Supreme Court admitted Villanueva’s redacted statement (with jury instruction not to consider deletions), denied severance, and denied suppression of on-scene and precinct identifications after Wade/Huntley hearings.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree gang assault and fourth-degree weapons possession; Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave and reversed, ordering a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s redacted statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause under Bruton/Gray/Richardson	Redaction and limiting instruction cured any Bruton risk because the read-aloud version used neutral references to “a Latin King.”	The written redaction (large blank spaces/"deleted") was an obvious alteration that facially implicated defendant and thus violated Bruton.	Court held admission violated Bruton/Gray: blank-space redaction was facially incriminating and prejudicial.
Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	The People argued the identification and other evidence were strong enough to render the error harmless.	The redaction likely tainted the verdict given witness bias, corroborating hearsay nickname testimony, and jury indecision.	Court held the error was not harmless under New York’s Crimmins standard; reversal required.
Whether the pretrial show-up identifications should have been suppressed as unduly suggestive	Show-ups were reasonable (temporal/spatial proximity and exigency); identifications were reliable.	Defendant argued show-ups were inherently or unduly suggestive and tainted subsequent precinct IDs.	Court declined to disturb suppression ruling: mixed question of law/fact supported the trial court’s determination that showups were not unduly suggestive.
Whether admission of detective’s testimony about girlfriend calling defendant “Bambino” was harmless hearsay error	People: any hearsay error was harmless in context.	Defendant: the hearsay bolstered already-biased eyewitnesses and compounded prejudice from the Bruton error.	Court found the hearsay error, combined with the Bruton violation, contributed to tainting the verdict and was not harmless.

Key Cases Cited

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (facially incriminating extrajudicial statements by a non-testifying codefendant cannot be used at a joint trial)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (blank or obviously deleted redactions may still be Bruton-prohibited; neutral substitutions may be permissible)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (a codefendant’s confession does not violate Confrontation Clause if redacted to eliminate any reference to the defendant and a proper limiting instruction is given)
United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (articulates a two-step inquiry on redactions: whether alteration obviously identifies a person and whether statement would immediately inculpate a defendant)
People v. Wheeler, 62 N.Y.2d 867 (1984) (New York precedent aligning with Bruton/Gray: obvious redactions like “deleted” are insufficient)
People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 (1975) (New York harmless-error rule requires inquiry whether a constitutional error could have affected the verdict)