WILLIAM H. GRUBBS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Pressley v. State, 261 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
  …e would have been sufficient. Under these circumstances, the court should have granted appellant’s motion for a new trial under the rationale of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, and Seidel v. State, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 521. See also Farnell v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 753. Cf. United States v. Bentvena, 319 F. 2d 916 (2d Cir. 1963).…
• Russell v. State, 349 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
  …ant does not testify even if the court [*1226] instructs the jury to disregard the confession in determining guilt or innocence of the second co-defendant. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Seidel v. State, 240 So. 2d 521 (Fla.4th DCA 1970). We cannot agree with appellee’s argument that the appellant should not be able to suppress the harmful part of a confession and then allow the rest of it into evidence. Clearly, if a defendant is allowed to suppress an entire co…

Authorities Cited

• Steinhauser v. State, 228 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)