Lilly v. Virginia

1999-06-14

Headline: Court restricts prosecutors from using a nontestifying accomplice’s custodial confession that blames a defendant without cross-examination, reversing the conviction and requiring stronger reliability proof before admission.

Holding: The Court held that admitting a nontestifying accomplice’s custodial confession that incriminated the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment because such statements are not a firmly rooted hearsay exception and lacked particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Real World Impact:

Bars prosecutors from using untested custodial accomplice confessions against defendants without reliability showing.
Appellate courts must independently review claimed guarantees of trustworthiness for such statements.
State courts must reconsider convictions and assess whether any admission error was harmless.

Topics: confrontation rights, hearsay rules, accomplice confessions, criminal trials, appellate review

Summary

Background

A man was tried and convicted for a December series of crimes including the murder of Alex DeFilippis after his brother, an accomplice, gave hours of custodial statements to police. The brother invoked his Fifth Amendment right at the defendant’s trial, so the prosecution introduced the brother’s taped and transcribed statements, saying they were ‘‘statements against penal interest’’ and therefore admissible. The trial court admitted the full confession, the jury convicted the defendant, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed that admission under state hearsay rules.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether admitting a nontestifying accomplice’s confession that included some statements against the accomplice’s interest and others accusing the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses (to cross-examine them). Applying the Court’s Ohio v. Roberts framework, the majority held that accomplices’ confessions that incriminate a defendant are not a ‘‘firmly rooted’’ hearsay exception and that corroboration, Miranda warnings, or lack of an express leniency promise do not automatically supply the necessary particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. The Court concluded the untested custodial confession violated the Confrontation Clause, reversed the Virginia court’s judgment, and remanded for state courts to decide whether any error was harmless.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents prosecutors from relying on a nontestifying accomplice’s custodial statements to prove another person’s guilt unless they satisfy the Roberts reliability test. Appellate and state courts must reassess such evidence, and convictions that rested on similar untested confessions may be reconsidered or sent back for harmless-error review.