United States v. Castro, 2:19-cr-00295-GMN-NJK

Defendant Mario Castro is one of six defendants charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341); trial was set for April 25, 2022.
Castro moved to exclude all extra-judicial co‑defendant statements unless and until a co‑defendant testifies, invoking Bruton and its progeny.
The United States responded it does not intend to introduce testimony that would violate Bruton.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe and briefed without a hearing.
The court found the motion premature because no specific statements were proffered for review, and denied the motion without prejudice, allowing Castro to renew if specific problematic statements are identified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should preclude introduction of any co‑defendant statements at trial unless that co‑defendant testifies to avoid Bruton violations	United States: no need for a blanket order; Govt. does not plan to introduce Bruton‑violative testimony	Castro: seeks prophylactic order excluding all extra‑judicial co‑defendant statements unless the speaker testifies	Denied without prejudice as premature; defendant may submit specific statements later; no need to order the Govt to "follow the law"

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (holding admission of a co‑defendant's confession implicating another defendant violates the Confrontation Clause even with limiting instruction)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (permitting admission of a confession redacted to remove any reference to another co‑defendant accompanied by limiting instruction)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (holding an obvious redaction that signals the deletion of a co‑defendant's name can violate the Confrontation Clause)
Mason v. Yarborough, 447 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying Bruton/Richardson principles in the Ninth Circuit)