SARABIA

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Hicks, 524 F.2d 1001 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …little prejudice. The key fact to be proved is not that the robbery took place, or that it involved several participants, but that the defendants were the robbers. See also United States v. Gregg, 414 F. 2d 943, 948-89 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 934, 90 S.Ct. 2251, 26 L.Ed.2d 806 (1970). The defendants also allege that reference by Crane to Douglas Hicks’s statement that he parked the car on a particular freeway ramp tended to identify his co-defendants, because other evidence was introduced t…
• United States v. Holleman, 575 F.2d 139 (7th Cir. 1978)
  …ts, and in this case, of deleting specific references to codefendants in the confession. Many courts in varying circumstances have approved the redacting procedure. This court, in United States v. Gregg, 414 F. 2d 943 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 934, 90 S.Ct. 2251, 26 L.Ed.2d 806 (1970), a case arising shortly after the publication of Bruton, approved the use of a codefendant’s confession after deletion of incriminating references to codefendants even in the absence of limiting instructions. We…
• United States v. English, 501 F.2d 1254 (7th Cir. 1974)
  …d in the robbery and killing. In the court’s final instructions to the jury, further admonitions were given.5 The procedure followed here was precisely the same as we approved in United States v. Gregg, 414 F. 2d 943 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 934, 90 S.Ct. 2251, 26 L.Ed.2d 806 (1970), where we said as 948-949: The Supreme Court in Bruton (Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476) in speaking of alternative methods to admit a confession against the confessor witho…