Isabel Tzunux-Zacarias v. Kentucky

Petitioner’s guilt was established by two pieces of constitutionally dubious evidence. First, the Commonwealth was allowed to offer a Bruton-ized summary of Petitioner’s statement stating that Petitioner confessed to the only disputed fact. Petitioner disputed the accuracy of that summary, however he was unable to offer the full text of the statement to give the jury a chance to determine what he meant. Second, the Commonwealth relied on out of court Spanish to English translations of text messages, the accuracy of which was disputed. The translations were prepared by a police officer in anticipation of trial, but introduced by a different officer who spoke no Spanish and could not be examined on the original meaning of the messages. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed both rulings, giving rise to the following important questions: I. Whether a defendant’s statement to police can be rewritten to comply with Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968)? If so, are there limits to the extent to which a statement may be altered to meet Bruton requirements? If the defense disputes that the rewritten statement accurately presents what the defendant said, is it sufficient that the defendant was allowed to crossexamine the police witness without specifically describing the statement or must the defendant be permitted to present the full text of the statement to enable the jury to resolve the dispute? II. Whether, under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Confrontation Clause applies to a police interpreter’s out of court translation of a written statement, created for later use at trial? 1 1 This Question is also presented in the petition filed by co-defendant Mario TzunuxZacarias.