The Supreme Court Is Eliminating More of Our Rights
Bear with me on this - it’s a little more complicated than my usual post.
In a case that has not received much publicity outside of legal analysts, the United States Supreme Court has changed the law involving one’s right to confront accusers, something I thought all Americans agreed on because it’s in the Bill of Rights.
In her dissent of June 23, 2023, Justice Kagan in Samia v. United States (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/599/22-196/#tab-opinion-4756498) described the following situation:
Imagine a criminal case involving two defendants—John and Mary. John and Mary are arrested for robbing Bill. Before trial, John confesses to the robbery in an interview with police. But John does more than admit his own involvement; he also points a finger at Mary. John says to the police: “Mary and I went out Saturday night and robbed Bill.” Mary, on the other hand, never confesses to the robbery. She maintains that she wasn’t involved—in fact, that she never left her home on the night in question. The government tries John and Mary together. At trial, it introduces a copy of John’s confession into evidence, and has it read to the jury by the interviewing officer. But John elects not to take the stand, leaving Mary’s attorney without an opportunity to cross-examine him about his confession.
Justice Kagan was dissenting from the Court’s ruling that reversed the long-standing decision of the Court in United States v. Bruton, which held that if Norm and Dan were charged with a crime and Norm confessed but did not testify at a joint trial, the confession could not be admitted because Dan’s lawyer could not attack it.
Here is a part of the ruling in Bruton, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/123/:
A joint trial of petitioner and one Evans resulted in the convictions of both for armed postal robbery. Evans did not take the stand, but a postal inspector testified that Evans confessed orally that he and petitioner committed the robbery. The trial judge instructed the jury that, although Evans' confession was competent evidence against him it was inadmissible hearsay against petitioner and had to be disregarded in determining petitioner's guilt or innocence. Evans and petitioner both appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court set aside Evans' conviction on the ground that the oral confession should not have been received against him, but affirmed petitioner's conviction in view of the trial judge's instructions.
Held: Because of the substantial risk that the jury, despite instructions to the contrary, looked to the incriminating extrajudicial statements in determining petitioner's guilt, admission of Evans' confession in the joint trial violated petitioner's right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
It’s worth noting that the Court in Bruton was unanimous, apart from Justice Marshall who did not participate (I believe because he had not been on the Court during oral arguments).
Even though I had little experience in criminal law, I’m familiar with this issue because my first and only criminal trial involved the same issue, United States v. Dailey, 524 F.2d 911(8th Cir. 1975), (United States of America, Appellee, v. Percy Dailey, Jr., Appellant, 524 F.2d 911 (8th Cir. 1975) :: Justia). There my defendant (who I still believe was simply picked off the street by the cops because he was black) denied attempting to rob a bank. His alleged co-robber (whom he did not know) admitted the attempt when arrested, but pled not guilty and went to trial. When I moved to sever the cases so they could be tried separately, the judge initially denied the motion. Then, on the day of trial, the government realized I was right (under the Bruton ruling) and moved to sever the trials, and the judge granted it. If the same case came up today, there likely would be a joint trial because the government would try to prejudice my defendant with the testimony of the confessing defendant, and an innocent person might serve 15 years in jail.
If you are interested in learning more, click on the links to the opinions in the three cases. But the bottom line is that the Roberts/Trump court is doing damage to our rights in many places, not just on Reproductive rights.