Skip to content
Name: Padilla v. Terhune
Case #: 01-56325
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/29/2002
Subsequent History: None

The admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s custodial confession was harmless error, where defendant’s guilt of murder was established by other strong evidence, and the confession was merely cumulative on the issue of intent to rob. Other hearsay testimony regarding statements against penal interest by either defendant or the nontestifying codefendant were sufficiently reliable and trustworthy to be admitted. Finally, double hearsay testimony by Munoz regarding statements by a codefendant immediately after the crime was doubly admissible as trustworthy and did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the first and second declarants testified at trial and they were cross-examined about what statements they heard from the group.