← All Authorities
United States hearsay

Samia v United States

599 U.S. 635 (2023)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A redacted co-defendant confession that replaces the defendant's name with a neutral pronoun does not violate the Confrontation Clause under Bruton, provided it does not directly implicate the defendant on its face.

Key Principle

Confrontation Clause; redacted co-defendant confession not testimonial hearsay if properly redacted; Bruton limits

Area of Law

criminal

Related Cases

Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123

Appellate court must itself assess whether jury verdict was unreasonable where unchallenged opportunity evidence raised reasonable doubt as to guilt.

Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (2020) 272 CLR 177

Search warrant executed at journalist's home held invalid for technical defects; High Court considered scope of implied freedom of political communication but declined to quash the warrant on that basis.

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57

The High Court considered the Browne v Dunn rule and the appropriate jury directions when a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a matter it intends to contradict.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Samia v United States and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Samia v United States