The Silent Accomplice and the Suppressed Statement
Two men, Alex and Ben, are charged with armed robbery of a convenience store. The prosecution's evidence includes: (1) a surveillance video showing two masked men, one taller; (2) Ben's confession to police that "me and Alex did it," given after Ben was told he could go home if he talked; (3) Alex's statement to a jailhouse informant that "we hit the store, but I didn't have the gun"; and (4) testimony from the store clerk that the taller robber "sounded like Alex." Ben will not testify at trial and asserts his privilege. Alex moves to exclude Ben's confession and his own statement to the informant. The informant will testify in exchange for a reduced sentence.
1. Should Ben's confession be admitted against Alex? Analyze under the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules.
Read the worked answer
Ben's confession should be excluded as to Alex. It is hearsay, and its admission would violate the Confrontation Clause because Ben is unavailable and Alex has no opportunity to cross-examine him. Statements that are testimonial - made during police interrogation to establish past events for prosecution - cannot be admitted against a defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. Ben's confession was given to police in a custodial setting and is plainly testimonial. The co-conspirator or statements-against-interest exceptions do not override the Confrontation Clause for testimonial statements. The fact that Ben invoked his privilege makes him unavailable, but unavailability alone is insufficient. The confession must be excluded from Alex's trial, though it may be used against Ben in his own trial.
2. Should Alex's statement to the jailhouse informant be admitted? Analyze the Sixth Amendment issue.
Read the worked answer
The statement should likely be excluded if the informant was acting as a government agent. Under the Sixth Amendment, once formal charges are filed, the government may not deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the accused without counsel present. If the informant was placed in the cell or instructed to obtain information, he is a government agent, and Alex's statement was deliberately elicited in violation of his right to counsel. The statement would be inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief. If, however, the informant was a mere fellow inmate acting on his own and not directed by the government, the Sixth Amendment does not apply, and the statement could be admitted as a statement against interest or an admission. The key factual question is whether the government directed or encouraged the informant. Given that he is testifying for a reduced sentence, courts scrutinize whether an agency relationship existed.
3. If Ben's confession is excluded but the clerk's voice-identification testimony is admitted, is the evidence sufficient to convict Alex?
Read the worked answer
Probably not on this record. The remaining evidence is the surveillance video showing two masked men (one taller) and the clerk's testimony that the taller robber "sounded like Alex." Voice identification can be admissible if the witness is familiar with the voice, but the clerk's basis is thin - a single encounter during a robbery. Without Ben's confession or Alex's custodial statement, the evidence is circumstantial and does not firmly place Alex at the scene. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; a voice identification plus a masked video may be insufficient, especially if the defense challenges the clerk's familiarity. If Alex's statement to the informant is also excluded, the case weakens further. The court should consider whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt; if not, a judgment of acquittal is appropriate.