The jury was instructed that Pointer's confession could only be used as evidence against Pointer.  During closing argument, the prosecutor referred to Pointer's confession as implicating Eskridge.  The prosecutor immediately caught and recognized his error, and thereafter referred to "another" rather than Eskridge.


5
The jury convicted both defendants on both counts.  Eskridge argues on appeal that the district court erred when it admitted Pointer's redacted confession into evidence.  He also appeals a sentencing enhancement he received for obstruction of justice.

II. ANALYSIS

6
A. Bruton violation.


7
Eskridge's first argument on appeal is that the admission of Pointer's redacted written confession was reversible error because it violated his right to confrontation under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), and its progeny. Fritz testified that approximately three weeks before trial, he interviewed an individual named Tony Watson who was then in custody on an open municipal violation.  Watson told Officer Fritz that sometime in mid-January of 1993, Eskridge asked him to go to Gail Harris's sister's house and offer to return the items stolen from Harris and provide her with drugs if she wanted them.  Officer Fritz testified that both Gail Harris and her sister told him that Watson did in fact communicate this message to them at Eskridge's request.  Officer Fritz also testified that on February 2, 1993, his partner, FBI Special Agent Stan Knotts, received a phone call from the victim, Allen Rembert, who reported that earlier that day a woman identifying herself as "Coco"