At a joint trial, a postal inspector testified that Evans orally confessed that he and petitioner committed the armed postal robbery. Evans' confession also included an admission that he had an accomplice. Evans did not testify at trial, so petitioner could not cross-examine him. The trial judge instructed the jury that Evans' confession was admissible only against Evans and had to be disregarded in determining petitioner's guilt or innocence.
Issue
Whether, in a joint trial, a defendant's conviction must be set aside when the jury hears a nontestifying codefendant's confession inculpating the defendant, even though the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant.
Rule
In a joint trial, admission of a nontestifying codefendant's extrajudicial confession that directly incriminates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the codefendant does not take the stand and is not subject to cross-examination. In that context, a limiting instruction directing the jury to disregard the confession as to the defendant is not an adequate substitute for cross-examination because the risk the jury will use the confession against the defendant is too substantial.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a joint federal robbery trial in Chicago, the prosecution calls Detective Lena Ortiz, who testifies that codefendant Aaron Pike confessed during custodial questioning that he and Malik Turner committed the robbery together. Aaron does not testify. The judge instructs the jury that Aaron's confession may be considered only against Aaron and must be ignored as to Malik.
If Malik is convicted, what is the strongest argument for reversal?
Explanation. The majority held that at a joint trial, admitting a nontestifying codefendant's extrajudicial confession that directly inculpates the defendant violates the defendant's right of confrontation. The risk that the jury will use the confession against the nonconfessing defendant is too substantial, so a limiting instruction is not an adequate substitute for cross-examination.