O’Neil is a California prisoner, convicted on two counts under the California Penal Code, kidnapping for purposes of robbery (§ 209) and robbery in the first degree (§ 211), and vehicle theft (Cal.Veh.Code § 10851). On April 25, 1968, O’Neil filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, which granted the writ. The warden appeals ( 28 U.S.C. § 2253 ).

1. The facts.

The District Judge made his ruling on the basis of the record of the California trial. This is what that record shows. O’Neil was tried with his alleged partner in the crimes, Roosevelt Runnels. The prosecution presented three witnesses, the victim and two policemen. The victim testified that while he was waiting for his wife in a grocery store parking lot the defendants entered his car at gunpoint. They took about eight dollars from his wallet, forced him to drive several blocks from the market and get out of his car, and then drove away.

One of the policemen testified that later the same evening he had responded to a call from a liquor store operator who was suspicious of a white Cadillac circling the block outside his store. When the squad car followed the Cadillac, one of its occupants threw a gun out of the window. The police stopped the car and arrested its occupants. The car belonged to the victim; its occupants were the defendants.

The other policeman testified (over objection) to a statement made to him by O’Neil’s co-defendant Runnels two days after the arrest. Runnels’ purported statement coincides almost exactly with the victim’s story so far as they overlap, but gives considerable credit to O’Neil for masterminding and directing the day’s work. Runnels is alleged to have said that O’Neil came to his place in the afternoon before the robbery and asked him if he wanted “to make a couple of hits,” and that after the occurrence in question they decided to drive over to rob the liquor store, and were circling outside waiting for the customers to leave when they were arrested.

Both defendants relied almost entirely on an alibi. Each took the stand and testified that they had been at O’Neil’s house at the time of the robbery, and that they had been given the car to drive by an acquaintance without warning that it did not belong to him. Several defense witnesses corroborated parts of the story. Runnels flatly denied having made the statement to the policeman, both on direct and cross examination.

O’Neil’s counsel did not cross-examine Runnels. He was trying to establish the same alibi to which Runnels was testifying and obviously did not want to ask about the veracity of an out-of-court statement that both he and Runnels wished to convince the jury had never' been made. The efforts of the prosecutor to trip up Runnels were to no avail; he flatly and consistently denied having made the statement. Presumably, if O’Neil’s counsel had cross-examined on the subject, the result would have been the same.

Before the officer testified about the statement of Runnels, the court instructed the jury as follows:

2. Violation of the Bruton rule.

At the close of the prosecutor’s case, there was presented the exact situ *321 ation that was condemned by the Supreme Court in Bruton v. United States, 1968, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , made fully retroactive in Roberts v. Russell, 1968, 392 U.S. 293 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 . The warden argues, however, that the Bruton error was cured because Runnels took the stand and so was available for cross-examination by counsel for O’Neil. Thus there was an opportunity to confront and cross-examine Runnels, lack of which is the basis for the Bruton decision. See Parker v. United States, 9 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 1193 .

We think that in this case the error was not cured. The Court in Bruton relied heavily on its earlier opinion in Douglas v. Alabama, 1965, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 . It is significant to note the use made of that case in Bruton . In Douglas , the statement of a convicted comrade in the crime (Loyd) was introduced to “refresh the memory” of Loyd when the state called him to the stand. It was presented in questions, piece by piece, over strong objection and despite Loyd’s absolute refusal to testify. In Bruton this near-misconduct (or dereliction of judicial duty) aspect of the case was not relied upon and the Court said:

It is true that in O’Neil’s case Runnels did take the stand and was thus available for cross-examination. But he did not “affirm the statement as his”; he flatly denied making it. Under these circumstances, while the statement was admissible against Runnels, both as an admission or confession and for impeachment, it never became admissible against O’Neil. Yet it remained in the record, and Bruton tells us that the court’s instruction to the jury is, as a matter of law, ineffective.

The damage done by the out-of-court statement was just what it would have been had Runnels refused to take the stand at all.

The only circuit that has squarely faced the question presented by this case is the Sixth. In Townsend v. Henderson, 6 Cir., 1968, 405 F.2d 324 , a co-defendant’s confession was admitted in a trial for jailbreaking. In reversing denial of habeas corpus, the court said:

See also West v. Henderson, 6 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 95 .

A number of circuits, including this one, have considered the application of Bruton in cases in which a co-defendant has taken the stand after the introduction of his out-of-court statement. But the cases that have rejected challenges under the Bruton rule have been careful to emphasize that effective cross-examination was possible, and usually, that it actually occurred.

In Santoro v. United States, 9 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 920 , the three co-defendants whose out-of-court statements were introduced took the stand and were examined and cross-examined at length:

In Rios-Ramirez v. United States, 9 Cir., 1969, 403 F.2d 1016 , cert. denied, 394 U.S. 951 , 89 S.Ct. 1292 , 22 L.Ed.2d 486 , we said:

In Ignacio v. People of the Territory of Guam, 9 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 513 , we summarized our holdings in Santoro and Rios-Ramirez:

Ignacio , however, was decided on harmless error grounds.

Parker v. United States, 9 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 1193 , is not to the contrary. There we pointed out that “[j]oint trials of persons charged together with committing the same offense or with being accessory to its commission are the rule, rather than the exception. There is a substantial public interest in this procedure. * * * ( 404 F.2d at 1196 ) In rejecting the Bruton argument we said:

We also rejected Parker’s argument that he had no right to cross-examine his co-defendant. Most of the evidence about which Parker was complaining came from the mouths of the co-defendants on the witness stand. That which came from the recital by F.B.I. agents of out-of-court statements was of minor importance. In essence, Parker is a harmless error case.

In United States v. Elliott, 9 Cir., 1969, 418 F.2d 219 , there was no out-of-court statement. The defendant was objecting to the direct testimony of a partner in crime. Again we emphasized the adequacy of the cross-examination:

Other circuits, in rejecting challenges under Bruton , have been careful to distinguish the situations before them from the situation in this case. See, e. g., United States v. Ballentine, 2 Cir., 1969, 410 F.2d 375 ; United States v. Jackson, 6 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 8 ; United States v. Lipowitz, 3 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 597 ; Lewis v. Yeager, 3 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 414 .

3. Harmless error.

The warden urges that if the Bruton rule was violated, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 . We think not.

Although the alibi may seem incredible (the jury certainly did not believe it), and the victim positively identified the defendants in court, we cannot say that the admission of Runnels’ statement did not harm O’Neil beyond a reasonable doubt. Some doubt was raised about the *323 victim’s identifications, and the alibi witnesses stuck by their stories. The remarkable agreement between Runnels’ out-of-court statement and the victim’s testimony is very persuasive; the statement offers a plausible explanation of the defendants’ motives and actions before, during and after the robbery. It seems to us more likely than not that Runnels’ statement dispelled the doubts of the jury. Harrington v. California, 1969, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , does not persuade us that the error here was harmless. The state’s case here was not overwhelming in the sense that the state’s case was overwhelming in Harrington .

4. Exhaustion of state remedies.

The warden argues that O’Neil has not exhausted his state remedies. The Bruton question was never presented to the state courts for the very gopd reason that Bruton had not been decided when O’Neil filed his federal petition. See Ashley v. California, 9 Cir., 1968, 397 F.2d 270 ; United States ex rel. Walker v. Fogliani, 9 Cir., 1965, 343 F.2d 43 ; Blair v. California, 9 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 741 . See also United States ex rel. Heirens v. Pate, 7 Cir., 1967, 401 F.2d 147 ; United States ex rel. DeLucia v. McMann, 2 Cir., 1967, 373 F.2d 759 ; United States ex rel. Martin v. McMann, 2 Cir., 1965, 348 F.2d 896 (in bane). Cf. United States ex rel. Bagley v. LaVallee, 2 Cir., 1954, 332 F.2d 890 .

On the other hand, the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , is based on comity, not jurisdiction. See Bowen v. Johnston, 1939, 306 U.S. 19, 27 , 59 S.Ct. 442 , 83 L.Ed. 455 ; Hunt v. Warden, 4 Cir., 1964, 335 F.2d 936 , 940. Cf. Wilson v. Anderson, 9 Cir., 1967, 379 F.2d 330 , rev’d, Anderson v. Nelson, 390 U.S. 523 , 88 S.Ct. 1133 , 20 L.Ed.2d 81 (1968). As we said in Walker, 343 F.2d at 47 :

When O’Neil filed his federal petition he had exhausted his then state remedies. No evidentiary hearing was held; none was or is required. Bruton gave him a “new” ground. It is a state ground as well as a federal one, because the state courts are bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the Constitution of the United States. The “facts,” i. e., the contents of the state record, are not disputed. The only question is one of law and federal law at that. The record shows that O’Neil did present the question, (but obviously could not cite Bruton or Roberts v. Russell, both supra) to the California courts. He relied on a decision of the California courts, People v. Aranda, 1965, 63 Cal.2d 518 , 47 Cal. Rptr. 353 , 407 P.2d 265 , which anticipated Bruton . The California Supreme Court has held, however, in People v. Charles, 1967, 66 Cal.2d 330 , 57 Cal. Rptr. 745 , 425 P.2d 545 , that People v. Aranda was not retroactive, that it did not apply to decisions that were then final. This is contrary to the Roberts rule of the Supreme Court, as applied to Bruton . But the People v. Charles holding did not affect O’Neil, because the affirmance of his conviction occurred only five days before People v. Charles was decided. His conviction was not final; he could and did apply for a rehearing, which was denied. He then sought habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, which was also denied. Thus substantially the same question that he now presents was presented to and decided by the California court, California having anticipated Bruton . We can find here no benefit to California’s administration of justice, no ameliora *324 tion of state-federal relationships, in requiring that O’Neil again wend his way through California’s courts. Federal law requires the decision that the District Judge made. Under the peculiar facts of this case, we agree with the District Judge that O’Neil has done enough so that he can be fairly said to have exhausted his state remedies. We here exercise our discretion to sustain that ruling.

We think that the matter is controlled by Roberts v. LaVallee, 1967, 389 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 194 , 19 L.Ed.2d 41 , and by our decision in Pope v. Harper, 9 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 1303 . As we there pointed out, Roberts v. LaVallee has destroyed whatever support the warden might find in Blair, supra. In Ashley and Walker, supra, there was fact finding to be done, and we thought it appropriate that the state courts be given the opportunity to find the facts.

Affirmed.