Williams v. Armontrout

it was not coercive for agent to advise owner of house being searched that agents were in the process of obtaining a search warrant | consent given after police said they were in process of getting search warrant was voluntary; such a statement by police was not coercive | consent given after police said they were in process of getting search warrant was voluntary; such a statement by police was not coercive | severance required when “the conflict is so irreconcilable that acceptance of one defendant’s defense requires that the testimony offered on behalf of a codefendant be disbelieved” | in-court identification erroneously admitted where witness was shown a photograph of the defendant while under hypnosis | post-hypnosis testimony barred because “factors positively supporting proper identification ... are outweighed on evaluation of the remaining factors” | ‘‘[a]s long as the essence of the alleged crime is carrying out a single scheme . . . then aggregation is permissible’’ (internal quotation marks omitted) | ‘‘[a]s long as the essence of the alleged crime is carrying out a single scheme . . . then aggregation is permissible’’ (internal quotation marks omitted) | “[A] redacted statement in which the names of co-defendants are replaced by neutral pronouns, with no indication to the jury that the original statement contained actual names ... may be admitted without violating a codefendant’s Bruton rights.”