The People v. Keith Johnson, 27 N.Y.3d 60

Defendant Keith Johnson and codefendant Joe Rushing were tried jointly for acting in concert to rob an undercover officer of prerecorded drug-buy money; defendant was shot during the incident.
UC44 (an undercover officer) testified that he approached Johnson to buy drugs, followed him to a car where Johnson sat in the passenger seat, and that Johnson produced a gun; UC44 threw prerecorded $30 into the car and was shot at.
Police recovered a gun from the passenger area and $30 in prerecorded buy money from Rushing’s pocket after arrest.
The People read a redacted version of Rushing’s grand jury statements at trial; Rushing said he stayed in the car while Johnson went for food, a man approached asking for “the stuff,” dropped money into the car, and Rushing put the money in his pocket and drove away.
Trial counsel argued police fabricated the drug-buy story; prosecutor repeatedly relied on Rushing’s grand jury statements in summation to corroborate police testimony and establish Johnson’s guilt.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding admission of Rushing’s non-testifying grand jury statements violated Bruton; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the statements were facially incriminating and the error was not harmless.

Issue	People’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether admission of a non‑testifying codefendant’s grand jury statements violated the Sixth Amendment under Bruton	Statements were exculpatory and not facially incriminating to Johnson	Rushing’s statements were powerfully incriminating as to Johnson and inadmissible without cross‑examination	Admission violated Bruton because statements (by name and content) directly implicated an element of the charged crime against Johnson
Whether any Bruton error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Error was harmless because other evidence was overwhelming and statements supported innocence	Error was not harmless; only UC44 testified to the drug‑buy, defense pointed to fabrication, inconsistencies existed, and jury requested readback of Rushing’s admission	Not harmless: reasonable possibility that Rushing’s statements contributed to the verdict given the contested credibility of the police evidence

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (pretrial confession of one defendant cannot be admitted against a co‑defendant when it is powerfully incriminating and the confessor does not testify)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (Bruton applies to statements that are facially incriminating; statements that become incriminating only when linked to other evidence may fall outside Bruton)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (clarifies Richardson; distinguishes types of inference—facially referential statements remain within Bruton)
People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750 (1988) (Bruton violations are subject to constitutional harmless‑error review)
People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 (1975) (standard for harmless error at the constitutional level)