Outside of the Bruton context, this Note also examines the implications of defining "testimonial" statements entirely from the point of view of the speaker as the Eighth Circuit did in Dale. This Note will argue that to ignore the motives of the examiner encourages the police to use unethical and deceptive interrogation techniques. This Note additionally argues that applying Bruton only to testimonial statements ignores Bruton's Due Process concerns in that it allows juries to do what the Supreme Court considers to be an "impossible" task. Finally, this Note questions whether, after Crawford, any remaining constitutional limits remain on the admission of unreliable yet nontestimonial hearsay statements
Minimizing Confrontation: The Eighth Circuit Uses Crawford Avoid Bruton for Non-Testimonial Statements,
76 Mo. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol76/iss3/12