Skip to content
Name: Samia v. United States (2023) __ U.S. __ [143 S.Ct. 2004]
Case #: 22-196
Court: US Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 06/23/2023

Majority opinion: Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined.
Concurring opinion: Justice Barrett joined the majority opinion in part and filed a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Dissenting opinions: Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.

The confrontation clause does not bar the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession where (1) the confession has been modified to avoid directly identifying the codefendant and (2) the court offers a limiting instruction.

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Almeda
Case #: C077141
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/12/2017

Admission of cellmate's testimony relating defendant's incriminating statements did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the cellmate was not acting under the government's direction. Villa and Almeda were charged with first degree murder for shooting a man parked in the car next to them at a stoplight. While in custody awaiting trial, Villa discussed details of the crime with his cellmate, Rhodes, who in turn reached out to the district attorney to offer Villa's statements in exchange for leniency for his own sentence. Rhodes, his attorney, and the prosecutor signed an agreement stating that the prosecution would…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Stallworth
Case #: B198111
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 07/01/2008

Readvisement of Fifth Amendment rights is not necessary if a proper warning has been given, and the subsequent interrogation is "reasonably contemporaneous" with the prior knowing and intelligent waiver. Appellant and three other individuals were involved in freeway shootings that resulted in the death of one of the victims. The day after the shootings, appellant and two other individuals were involved in a fight at a wedding party. Appellant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, three counts of shooting at an occupied vehicle, assault, and weapons and gang enhancements. During the course…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jefferson
Case #: B192952
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 01/07/2008

The admission of a taped exchange between accused incarcerated coperpetrators of a shooting was not error. Appellants were accused of a retaliatory drive-by shooting of the victim, who was mistakenly identified as a rival gang member. After their arrest, police placed them in a bugged cell together, hoping they would talk to each other, which they did. The jury heard that tape as well as part of another tape of appellant Staten talking to his aunt. Appellants argued on appeal that it was error to admit the tape of their conversation because it violated due process,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Noel
Case #: A099366
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/05/2005
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 7/27/05: S134543

In this consolidated appeal from the San Francisco dog mauling trial, the court considered together defendant Knoller’s appeal from her conviction and the People’s appeal from the order granting her a new trial. The court rejected Knoller’s argument that the trial court lost jurisdiction to sentence her after the People appealed the order granting her a new trial, noting that Penal Code section 1242 expressly reserves such jurisdiction to the trial court. The court further agreed with the People that the trial court had erred in granting Knoller a new trial on the second degree murder charge. …

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Castille
Case #: A089623
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/30/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 7/30/03; 3/22/04 Cert. granted, case vacated & remanded in light of Crawford.

Three defendants were tried together in a murder case. After their arrests, they participated in a joint interview after each had waived his right to remain silent. Once a statement was made by one of them, the other two were asked if what the original speaker had said was correct. In the vast majority of instances, each confirmed the original statements were true, and on occasion, corrected and clarified facts. At the conclusion of the interview, each expressly affirmed that he agreed with everything that had been discussed in the interview. The court held that…

View Full Summary