The Seventh Circuit has likewise adopted contextual analysis. See United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123 (7th Cir. 1984); English v. United States, 620 F.2d 150 (7th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 859, 101 S.Ct. 160, 66 L.Ed.2d 75 (1980) (Both Key English, primarily rely on United States v. Gonzalez, supra). But see United States ex rel. Cole v. Lane, 752 F.2d 1210, 1216 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Belle, supra, 593 F.2d at 493).

Id. at 135, 88 S.Ct. at 1628. However, if otherwise admissible, the statement may be admitted if all references to the co-defendant are deleted. United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123, 1126 (7th Cir. 1984). The introduction of a redacted confession may still violate the Bruton rule if the statement compels a directly inculpating inference.

For purposes of our decision, however, we accept the characterization of the Court of Appeals.See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 825 F.2d 572, 588, n. 57 (CA1 1987); United States v. Hodges, 770 F.2d 1475, 1477-1478 (CA9 1985); Webster v. Duckworth, 767 F.2d 1206, 1214-1216 (CA7 1985); United States v. Marshall, 762 F.2d 419, 423 (CA5 1985); United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581, 586, n. 3 (CA9 1984); United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123, 1127 (CA7 1984); United States v. Tranowski, 702 F.2d 668, 671 (CA7 1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1217 (1984); United States v. Sarmiento-Perez, 667 F.2d 1239 (CA5), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 834 (1982); United States v. Harmon, 632 F.2d 812 (CA9 1980); United States v. Mandel, 591 F.2d 1347, 1373-1374 (CA4), rev'd on other grounds, 602 F.2d 653 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 961 (1980); Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247, 681 S.W.2d 334 (1984); People v. Rios, 163 Cal.App.3d 852, 870-871, 210 Cal.Rptr. 271, 283-284 (1985); People v. Sisneros, 44 Colo. App. 65, 606 P.2d 1317 (1980); State v. Gray, 200 Conn. 523, 536-540, 512 A.2d 217, 225-226 (1986); Hall v. State, 244 Ga. 86, 93-94, 259 S.E.2d 41, 46-47 (1979); People v. Taylor, 76 Ill.2d 289, 309, 391 N.E.2d 366, 375 (1979); Morton v. State, 284 Md. 526, 397 A.2d 1385 (1979); Commonwealth v. Mattingly, 722 S.W.2d 288 (Ky. 1986); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 383 Mass. 272, 283-285, 418 N.E.2d 1226, 1233-1234 (1981); State v. Wood, 596 S.W.2d 394 (Mo.), cert. den

Specifically, documentary evidence and the testimony of Charles McGuire demonstrated Adams' involvement with the account. Compare United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123, 1126-27 (7th Cir. 1984) ( Bruton violation existed because codefendant's confession was the only evidence that defendant committed fraud). Therefore, when the prejudicial effect of the statement is compared to the properly admitted evidence of guilt, it appears clear that there is no reasonable probability that the improper statement contributed to the conviction.

The fact that Foree had such ready access to a house with an indoor marijuana cultivation facility that was obvious to anyone who entered, coupled with Draznin's unfamiliarity with a house she was leasing and admitted visiting, supplied persuasive evidence of a conspiracy in which Draznin agreed to act as a front for Foree's expansion of the Virginia Street operation to the Galloway Street house. Compare United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123, 1126-27 (7th Cir. 1984) (plain error Bruton violation existed because codefendant's confession was the only evidence, in fraud prosecution, that accident was staged). As for Foree's intent to distribute, the jury certainly could have surmised such a design from the combined number of 24 mature plants, 56 cuttings, and 17 seedlings found at the Virginia Street house alone.

Because Mr. Jackson's statements do not identify Mr. Chrismon, but require additional evidence and inference to implicate Mr. Chrismon, the government argues that their use at trial did not violate Bruton. In reply, Mr. Chrismon argues that the facts in this case make the otherwise vague references to "you guys" and "they" direct references to the group of three defendants: Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chrismon, and Mr. Poe. Specifically, Mr. Chrismon notes that the three defendants were the only occupants of the trailer at the time of the search, that they were all apprehended, arrested, and transported together to the station, and that it was immediately following this group arrest that Agent Wichern interviewed Mr. Jackson and the phrases "you guys" and "they" were used. For support, Mr. Chrismon cites United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123, 1126 (7th Cir. 1984), which held that "`[t]he introduction of a confession from which the names of codefendants have been excised may violate the Bruton rule if in context the statement is clearly inculpatory of a co-defendant and vitally important to the Government's case.'" (quoting English v. United States, 620 F.2d 150, 152 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 859, 101 S.Ct. 160, 66 L.Ed.2d 75 (1980)).

The cases cited for the proposition, United States ex rel. Haywood v. Wolff, 658 F.2d 455, 463 (7th Cir. 1981) and United States v. Guinan, 836 F.2d 350, 355 n. 12 (7th Cir. 1988), are inapposite because those cases merely noted that the formal setting provided the requisite indicia of reliability to satisfy the Confrontation Clause, not that a formal setting was required. The petitioners make a further spurious argument in contending that Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 420, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1077, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965) and United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123, 1126-27 (7th Cir. 1984), co-defendant confession cases, require exclusion of hearsay evidence that adds "critical weight" to the government's case. The "critical weight" argument, if accepted, would completely emasculate our statement-against-penal-interest doctrine, and it is without basis in law.

Furthermore, with regard to Hawkeye Bank, we believe that the circumstantial evidence allows an inference of Grandinetti's knowledge that fraud was being used to obtain the Hawkeye loan and his intent for it to be so used. A jury is "`permitted to infer from one fact the existence of another essential to guilt, if reason and experience support the inference.'" United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123, 1128 (7th Cir. 1984) (quoting Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 467, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1244, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943). Taking heed of Grandinetti's experience and position, his involvement in the Smith Federal caper, and his presence and participation in the loan pitch to Hawkeye, the needed inference seems so supported.

Thus, we vacate the court's judgment. See United States v. Porter, 807 F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1986) (if it is determined on appeal that district court should not have admitted unlawfully obtained evidence, new trial permissible whether or not remaining evidence would have proved sufficient to support verdict), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1048, 107 S.Ct. 2178, 95 L.Ed.2d 835 (1987); United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123 (7th Cir. 1984) (same). III. [24] Count III

The statement by the confessing defendant must also be vitally important to the government's case in order for its introduction to create a constitutional violation. United States v. Key, 725 F.2d 1123, 1126 (7th Cir. 1984); English v. United States, 620 F.2d 150, 152 (7th Cir. 1980) (where the confessing defendant related that three men had stopped at the Holiday Inn and "one of them registered there," and at trial the Holiday Inn reservation card bearing the name Alex English was admitted as evidence against English). These defendants were charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and a conspiracy to commit that same offense. It was not necessary to prove that Feijo-Garcia or Cervantes had any connection with Michael or William Bennett, for conspirators need not know all the members of the conspiracy.