United States v. Taylor, 752 F.3d 254

This is a Second Circuit case addressing whether to rehear a Hobbs Act case en banc after a panel decision.
The panel vacated convictions for co-defendants based on allegedly improper redactions and held Taylor’s first confession involuntary and the second tainted.
Sixteen judges dissented or commented on en banc review; seven voted against rehearing en banc.
The lead opinion denied rehearing en banc; a dissent by Cabranes argued en banc review was warranted on voluntariness and Bruton grounds.
Appendix materials and trial record were discussed to assess the factual and legal bases for voluntariness and Bruton-related concerns.
The core issues involve voluntariness under Dickerson and Connelly, continuing coercion under Elstad and Tankleff, and Bruton neutral redactions during a joint trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness after valid Miranda waiver was questioned	Taylor’s sleepiness during questioning made the confession involuntary.	Panel erred by treating sleepiness as coercive against Connelly and Dickerson.	En banc review warranted to reconsider voluntariness under Dickerson/Connelly.
Continuing coercion in a second confession	Second confession tainted by initial coercion should be suppressed.	Second confession was voluntary; Taylor initiated the second interview and remained awake.	Totality of circumstances requires en banc review to assess continuing coercion properly.
Bruton-based redaction of confessions in joint trial	Neutral redactions for co-defendants’ names created obvious Bruton risk.	Neutral redactions were permissible; Bruton error not shown in isolation.	En banc review needed to reaffirm Bruton standards and neutral-redaction approach.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (U.S. 2000) (Miranda warnings and voluntariness interplay; warnings do not assure voluntariness)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (Mental state alone not enough; requires coercive police activity)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (Totality of circumstances for continuing coercion; not cabined to Elstad factors)
Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 1998) (Look to totality for second-confession taint; coercion can dissipate)
United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1947) (Cat-out-of-the-bag doctrine; later confessions may be usable)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (Bruton rule; redactions may prevent prejudice when isolation shown)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (Bruton look for obvious indications of alteration)
United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (Neutral redactions can be acceptable under Bruton in isolation)
Tutino, 883 F.2d 1125 (2d Cir. 1989) (Bruton-related redaction precedent supporting neutral substitutions)