Three people are arrested for murder of Boston pizza delivery man in 2010; one pleads guilty and the other two are tried together. Co-defendant "1" makes inculpatory statements about co-defendant "2." The state wants to use 1's statements against 2, so it creates a redacted transcript of the statements, replacing all references to 2's name with a blank space. The state shows the jury that transcript at the close of 2's trial and he's convicted. Man: That's a Sixth Amendment violation! First Circuit: Yes! But we have "no grave doubt" that the jury would have reached the same verdict without the redacted statement. Conviction affirmed. Partial dissent: "I entertain 'grave doubt' about whether the statement had such an influence" because let's be honest, it was "plainly critical to the prosecution."
The case is St. Jean v. Marchilli, No. 22-1846 (1st Cir. 2024).