Accomplice Confessions and the Confrontation Clause: Crawford v. Washington Confronts Past Issues with a New Rule

Abstract

Following a line of somewhat unclear confrontation precedent, the United States Supreme Court once again tackled Confrontation Clause issues in Crawford v. Washington. The issue before the Court was whether an out-of-court accomplice confession inculpating the defendant is admissible under the Confrontation Clause on the basis that it overlaps (i.e. interlocks) with the defendant's confession. On a broader level, the Court addressed whether it should overhaul its current framework for analyzing the admissibility of extra-judicial statements (i.e. hearsay) under the Confrontation Clause. In a landmark decision, the Court sidestepped the first issue and rested its decision on the latter issue, over-turning decades of its own precedent to lay down a new Confrontation Clause framework.

Part II of this comment discusses the historical background of the Court's Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and hearsay law, especially in relation to the admissibility of accomplice confessions against the criminal defendant. Part III illustrates the Court's struggle with the admissibility of accomplice confessions through a discussion of how the Court grappled with the issues of interlocking confessions and the "against penal interest" exception to the hearsay rule. Part IV summarizes the state of the Court's confrontation doctrine prior to Crawford and presents the main criticisms of the doctrine. Part V outlines the background of Crawford v. Washington and analyzes the opinions of the Court. Part VI concludes with an examination of Crawford's impact on criminal prosecutions and the admissibility of accomplice confessions.