United States v. Dennis Patrick Sullivan
Opinion
Opinion
Sullivan was convicted on two counts of robbing two federally insured banks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). His principal contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in not severing the trials of Sullivan and his co-defendant Binning and in admitting Binning’s statement, which implicated Sullivan, in violation of his rights under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). We affirm.
Well before the trial date, counsel for the government advised both defense counsel by letter that he intended to offer in evidence the oral admissions of Binning to F.B.I. agents. He enclosed copies of the Binning statements.
Again, shortly before trial, the government in a trial memorandum advised the court and opposing counsel that the Binning’s “admissions implicate not only the defendant Binning but, also, the defendant Sullivan as well.”
Before trial the district attorney suggested separate trials for Binning and Sullivan and advised the court that the government would not resist a motion for severance if made by defendants. Counsel for Binning rejected the suggestion, saying: “It’s our plan to try them together, your Honor.”