Samia v. United States Might Lower Threshold for Confession Use

Adam Samia was a hitman for an international crime organization who, according to federal prosecutors, “committed an array of crimes worthy of a James Bond villain.”

The US Supreme Court has granted Samia’s petition for writ of certiorari and will soon hear arguments challenging his murder-for-hire conviction and life sentence.

Confrontation Clause

At issue is the scope of the protection in the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause against out-of-court statements by non-testifying co-defendants that inculpate the defendant.

More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court in Bruton v. United States held that admission of a co-defendant’s out-of-court statement that names the defendant violates the clause because the defendant has been deprived of their right to cross-examine the witness presented against him.

In Samia’s case, co-defendant David Stillwell confessed before trial. He confessed that he was the getaway driver, and Stillwell identified Samia as the gunman who shot the victim.

A redacted version of Stillwell’s confession was introduced at trial. References to “Samia” were replaced by generic references to the “other person.”

Samia’s trial counsel objected, arguing that, given the full context, including questioning by the prosecution, it was obvious to the jury that Samia was the “other person,” rendering any redaction or sanitization meaningless.

Confession Analysis

The trial judge overruled Samia’s objections, finding that Bruton does not require a trial judge to consider the context of the co-defendant’s confession when assessing whether the confession implicates the defendant.

Instead, a judge will solely consider the four corners of the confession to see if the co-defendant identified the defendant by name.

Because Samia’s name was redacted from Stillwell’s confession, he was not directly implicated in Stillwell’s confession. Any inference that the jury could draw that Samia was “the other person” would be permissible. The Second Circuit affirmed on appeal.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a split that has developed in the circuit courts on whether Bruton requires a trial judge to consider the context of a co-defendant’s statement or consider it in isolation to determine whether the statement improperly implicates the defendant in violation of the Confrontation Clause.

Minority-Majority Views

The minority view, including the Second Circuit, takes a formulaic view of Bruton. Under this line of reasoning, Bruton prohibited the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s statement if it directly implicates the defendant.

Sanitizing the confession, such as redacting the name of the defendant, is sufficient to avoid a Confrontation Clause violation.

Because the introduced confession does not directly mention the defendant, there is no need for a trial judge to consider the context of the confession and whether the jury would reasonably conclude that the unnamed individual is clearly the defendant. This view is also followed in the Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits.

The majority view, on the other hand, take a more practical view of Bruton. These courts require a trial judge to consider the context of the confession and assess not just whether the confession removes references to the defendant, but rather, whether the jury will infer that the statement is about the defendant.

If the necessary implication of the confession is that the unnamed individual is the defendant, then this creates a Confrontation Clause issue under Bruton just as if the confession named the defendant directly. The First, Third, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits take this approach.

Circuit Impact

If the Supreme Court adopts the Second Circuit’s approach, the immediate impact is clear. Prosecutors will instantly have a lower threshold in the First, Third, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits to introduce a co-defendant’s confession at trial, giving prosecutors another tool to use against defendants.

This would eviscerate the protections previously applied in Bruton, according to Samia. By contrast, there would be no expected change at trials in the Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits because those courts already apply the more prosecution-friendly standard.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court adopts the majority view, then prosecutors will have a higher hurdle to meet to introduce a co-defendant’s statement in all circuits across the country.

Trial judges will be expected to expand their gatekeeping function and analyze the broader facts and testimony any time that prosecutors seek to introduce a co-defendant’s out-of-court statement.

In the courts already following this approach, the additional layer of judicial factfinding has not resulted in any kind of de facto bar to using these statements.

Judges routinely analyze a statement and its context, and often conclude that introducing the statement does not directly implicate the defendant in violation of Bruton.

A number of organizations filed amici curiae briefs in support of Samia, urging the court to adopt the contextual approach, which they argue protects a robust right to cross-examination.

These groups include the National Association of Federal Defenders, the New York Council of Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a collection of retired federal judges and former federal prosecutors. (At the time of this writing, any amicus curiae brief in support of the government was not yet due.)

Confrontation Clause cases have been known to divide the Supreme Court with fractured opinions, albeit not along traditional ideological lines.

With the issue in Samia already splitting circuit courts, the Supreme Court may again be looking at a divided Confrontation Clause ruling.

Argument in Samia v. United States is scheduled for March 29, 2023. An opinion from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Author Information

Jeffrey Mongiello is an associate at Epstein Becker Green who focuses his practice on white-collar criminal and civil government investigations.