In People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518, the California Supreme Court articulated a rule of criminal procedure prohibiting the introduction of a nontestifying codefendant's extrajudicial statement that directly or inferentially implicates a jointly tried defendant, unless the statement is redacted to eliminate the direct or inferential reference to the defendant. (Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 528-531.) Aranda held the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's out-of-court confession, which inculpates the defendant, is not rendered harmless by a jury instruction that the evidence should not be considered against that defendant. (Id. at p. 526.) Instead, if the defendants are tried together, either the statement must be redacted to remove direct and indirect identification of the defendant, or it must be excluded altogether. (Id. at pp. 530-531.) The Supreme Court concluded that a jury may draw an inference from the circumstances surrounding the robbery that a gun was real and not a toy. "Testimony to the effect that the defendant was flourishing the pistol or pointing it at the victim and was using threatening words or conduct indicating that he intended to fire it if his demands were not met would be evidence from which the inference could be drawn." (Aranda , at p. 533.) The California Supreme Court sought to accommodate the legislative preference for joint trials ( Pen. Code, 1098) to the fact that the prosecution frequently wishes to present evidence in the form of incriminating statements admissible only against one defendant which, however, incriminate codefendants against whom the statements are inadmissible. The court announced that rather than pursuing the constitutionally doubtful procedure of instructing the jury that such statements can be used only against the declarant defendant, the trial court must delete any portion of the statement "that could be employed against nondeclarant codefendants"; if effective deletions cannot be made, the trial court must either grant a severance or exclude the statements in their entirety. ( People v. Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 529-531.) In sum, the court indicated that "when the prosecution proposes to introduce into evidence an extrajudicial statement of one defendant that implicates a codefendant, the trial court must adopt one of the following procedures: (1) It can permit a joint trial if all parts of the extrajudicial statements implicating any codefendants can be and are effectively deleted without prejudice to the declarant. By effective deletions, we mean not only direct and indirect identifications of codefendants but any statements that could be employed against nondeclarant codefendants once their identity is otherwise established. (2) It can grant a severance of trials if the prosecution insists that it must use the extrajudicial statements and it appears that effective deletions cannot be made. (3) If the prosecution has successfully resisted a motion for severance and thereafter offers an extrajudicial statement implicating a codefendant, the trial court must exclude it if effective deletions are not possible."