specifically instructed jurors that they “may not consider Clinton Van Berry’s statements to the FBI on December 17th in any way against Nadine Van Berry.” (1AA225.) See In re Brown, 457 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir.2006) (finding that Crawford was not violated where co-defendant’s out-of-court confession was admitted solely against co-defendant); cf Crawford, 541 U.S. at 40, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (finding Confrontation Clause violation in admission of wife’s testimonial statement as evidence against husband in criminal trial). We find, therefore, no Sixth Amendment violation under Crawford. We also find, as did the District Court, that Clinton’s statements did not “powerfully incriminate” Nadine. Cf. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124 n. 1, 135-36, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (<HOLDING>). In Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208,
holding that the introduction of a jointly tried nontestifying codefendants statement violates the sixth amendment confrontation clause if the statement contains incriminating evidence concerning a defendant holding that limiting instruction was insufficient to avoid confrontation clause violation where codefendants powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statement was admitted in joint trial with petitioner holding that a limiting instruction is required where evidence of a prior conviction is admitted over objection holding that when all references to the defendant in a codefendants statement are replaced with indefinite pronouns or other general terms the confrontation clause is not violated by the redacted statements admission if when viewed together with other evidence the statement does not create an inevitable association with the defendant and a proper limiting instruction is given holding that the clause was not violated by a redacted confession with a proper limiting instruction