Lilly v. Virginia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 · Evidence

527 U.S. 116 (1999)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseHearsayStatements against penal interestSixth AmendmentOhio v. Robertsfirmly rooted hearsay exceptionparticularized guarantees of trustworthiness

Facts

After a crime spree involving petitioner, his brother Mark, and Gary Barker, police separately questioned all three men. Petitioner did not mention the murder, but Mark, while in custody and being questioned by police, admitted some involvement in the crimes while also shifting major responsibility to petitioner and stating that petitioner shot the victim. At petitioner's separate trial, Mark invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not testify. Over petitioner's Confrontation Clause objection, the trial court admitted Mark's taped and transcribed statements in their entirety as declarations against penal interest.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a nontestifying accomplice's custodial confession that contains some self-inculpatory statements but also inculpates the accused. Also, whether the confession could be admitted either as falling within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or because it bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Rule

Under the Confrontation Clause framework stated in Ohio v. Roberts, hearsay from an unavailable declarant is admissible against a criminal defendant only if it falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or bears particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Accomplices' confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, and trustworthiness must be inherent in the circumstances of the statement itself rather than supplied by corroborating evidence. Courts must independently review whether asserted guarantees of trustworthiness satisfy the Clause.

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, police arrested Diego Mendez and Aaron Pike for an armed warehouse burglary. During a custodial interview, Diego admitted driving the van but said Aaron planned the burglary and struck the security guard with a crowbar. Diego later invoked the Fifth Amendment at Aaron's separate trial.

If the prosecution offers Diego's statement against Aaron on the theory that it was against Diego's penal interest, how should the court rule under the Confrontation Clause framework described in the majority opinion?

Explanation. The majority made explicit that accomplices' confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted hearsay exception for Confrontation Clause purposes. A statement that mixes self-inculpation with accusations against the defendant cannot be admitted on the ground that it is categorically reliable merely because parts are against penal interest. The prosecution would need to satisfy the separate trustworthiness prong.