Banks

Banks and Anderson were jointly charged in one action with robbery and DeFelice was charged with the same offense in a separate action. The two actions were consolidated for trial. All three defendants were convicted by jury. Only Banks’ appeal is before us.

None of the defendants testified or offered any evidence on the issue of guilt. DeFelice testified on voir dire on the issue of the admissibility of his confession. The court sustained the objection of appellant and Anderson to its admission as evidence against them and admonished the jury that “the statement that you are about to hear is binding only upon the defendant DeFelice and is not to be' considered in any con-, nection as far as the defendants Banks or Anderson are concerned.” This is the only admonition or instruction given by the court on the subject.

The confession of DeFelice named appellant as the driver of, the “getaway” car. It was obtained under conditions which violated the standards set forth in People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ], decided aftehthe trial herein.

. The crucial issue on appeal is the collective effect of (1) the erroneous admission into evidence of DeFelice’s…