New Mexico v. Earnest

Background

A person convicted in New Mexico challenged the use at trial of an out-of-court statement made by a codefendant. The New Mexico Supreme Court said admitting that statement without any opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the codefendant violated the defendant’s confrontation rights and reversed the conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated that judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s recent decision in Lee v. Illinois.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the failure to give the defendant a chance to cross-examine the codefendant automatically makes such statements inadmissible. The Court’s per curiam order vacated and remanded so the State can reexamine admissibility under Lee. Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence explains that an older rule requiring pretrial cross-examination is no longer controlling, and that a lack of cross-examination does not always make evidence unconstitutional. Instead, the State must have an opportunity to show that the specific codefendant statement has enough signs of reliability to satisfy confrontation concerns. The Court noted tests from Lee for cases where the two confessions are said to “interlock.”

Real world impact

The decision gives prosecutors another chance to justify admitting a codefendant’s out-of-court statement by showing it is reliable. It affects criminal trials where one defendant’s conviction may depend on a codefendant’s confession. This ruling is not a final merits decision; the case was sent back to the state court to reconsider evidence under the standards explained in Lee v. Illinois.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist, joined by three other Justices, concurred and emphasized that prior precedents requiring pre-admission cross-examination have been narrowed and that reliability, not automatic exclusion, is the central concern.