In a joint trial, a confession by a codefendant that is admitted against another defendant without that codefendant testifying raises which constitutional right?

In a joint trial, a confession by a codefendant that is admitted against another defendant without that codefendant testifying raises which constitutional right?

• A. Right to Confrontation
• B. Right to Counsel
• C. Right to a Speedy Trial
• D. Right to Privacy

Answer: (A)

The main idea is the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which gives a defendant the right to face and cross-examine witnesses who testify against him. When a codefendant’s confession is admitted at a joint trial to convict the other defendant, and the codefendant does not testify, there’s no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. That lack of cross-examination undermines the reliability and fairness the clause protects. This principle is exemplified by the Bruton rule, which bars a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that explicitly implicates the other from being used against him in a joint trial, unless it’s redacted or the codefendant testifies. So the constitutional right at stake is the Right to Confrontation.

The main idea is the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which gives a defendant the right to face and cross-examine witnesses who testify against him. When a codefendant’s confession is admitted at a joint trial to convict the other defendant, and the codefendant does not testify, there’s no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. That lack of cross-examination undermines the reliability and fairness the clause protects. This principle is exemplified by the Bruton rule, which bars a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that explicitly implicates the other from being used against him in a joint trial, unless it’s redacted or the codefendant testifies. So the constitutional right at stake is the Right to Confrontation.