{"id":8321,"date":"2022-12-13T08:18:19","date_gmt":"2022-12-13T16:18:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321"},"modified":"2022-12-13T08:18:19","modified_gmt":"2022-12-13T16:18:19","slug":"co-defendant-statements-and-joint-trials","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321","title":{"rendered":"Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a case on the perennial knotty problem of the admissibility of co-defendant statements in joint trials. The case is <em>Samia<\/em> v. <em>United States<\/em>, No. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/search.aspx?filename=\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/22-196.html\">22-196<\/a>. The out-of-court statement of one defendant is admissible against the defendant who made it, but generally not to incriminate other defendants.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Here is the Question Presented as stated by the petitioner:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Whether admitting a codefendant\u2019s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant\u2019s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>And here is the alternate phrasing by the government:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Whether the Sixth Amendment\u2019s Confrontation Clause precluded the admission at a joint trial of a modified version of a non-testifying co-defendant\u2019s statement, which did not facially inculpate petitioner and was accompanied by a limiting instruction that it be considered only against the co-defendant, on the theory that other trial evidence would lead the jury to link it to petitioner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a case on the perennial knotty problem of the admissibility of co-defendant statements in joint trials. The case is Samia v. United States, No. 22-196. The out-of-court statement of one defendant is admissible against the defendant who made it, but generally not to incriminate other defendants.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,17,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-procedure","category-evidence","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.8 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials - Crime &amp; Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials - Crime &amp; Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a case on the perennial knotty problem of the admissibility of co-defendant statements in joint trials. The case is Samia v. United States, No. 22-196. The out-of-court statement of one defendant is admissible against the defendant who made it, but generally not to incriminate other defendants.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime &amp; Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-12-13T16:18:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321\",\"name\":\"Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials - Crime &amp; Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-12-13T16:18:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime &amp; Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials - Crime &amp; Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials - Crime &amp; Consequences","og_description":"The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a case on the perennial knotty problem of the admissibility of co-defendant statements in joint trials. The case is Samia v. United States, No. 22-196. The out-of-court statement of one defendant is admissible against the defendant who made it, but generally not to incriminate other defendants.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321","og_site_name":"Crime &amp; Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2022-12-13T16:18:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321","name":"Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials - Crime &amp; Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-12-13T16:18:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8321#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Co-Defendant Statements and Joint Trials"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime &amp; Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8321","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8321"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8321\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8324,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8321\/revisions\/8324"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}