This is a big question because a lot of times — especially in felony cases, not as much in misdemeanor cases — there's a group of people arrested who are allegedly involved in a criminal conspiracy or other criminally related activity, and the police will separate all the people and take statements from them, and a lot of times some of the defendants actually make statements that not only hurt themselves — incriminate themselves — they also incriminate their co-defendants and say stuff that causes their co-defendants to be put in a bad position.  That statement, if used against the co-defendant, would certainly be a statement that could be used to convict them.

So, the question becomes, wait a minute, are we going to let that statement in against the co-defendant? Usually, the co-defendant's attorney does not have an opportunity to cross-examine that particular defendant unless they actually take the witness stand.

So, suppose the person does take the witness stand. In that case, a lot of times, that statement is going to come in. Of course, the defense attorney for the defendant who that statement is coming in against is going to be able to challenge that person and say, wait a minute, the only reason you said that was because you're trying to get yourself off and blame my client — whatever the angle is depending on exactly what is said and based on the circumstances of the case. This is where the defense attorney's role becomes crucial. They can challenge the co-defendant's statement and argue against its validity, which can significantly impact the case's outcome.

Aranda-Bruton Rule

But what if they try to get the evidence in at the preliminary hearing, for example, in a felony case?  There are cases called the Aranda-Bruton Rule.  These cases stand for the proposition that, yes, at a preliminary hearing, a co-defendant's statement can come in against another co-defendant and them as an admission even if the defense attorney doesn't have an opportunity to cross-examine that co-defendant.

However, I must express my disagreement with this rule.  I fail to see the logic or fairness behind it. The fact that a co-defendant's statement can be used against another defendant at a preliminary hearing without the opportunity for cross-examination seems unjust. This lack of opportunity to confront the witness and challenge their statement leaves the question hanging in the air, unaddressed.

So, the question becomes, wait a minute, why would you let it in in a preliminary hearing and not at a trial?  Apparently, they're saying you don't have confrontation rights at a preliminary hearing, which sounds very unreasonable and unfair.  A lot of times, prosecutors just use a co-defendant's statement to get passed the prelim when they really don't have a chance at a trial, and there's no chance that person's ever going to testify at the trial.  So, that statement's not coming in at the trial.

So, what happens if two co-defendants go to trial and they're trying to get the one co-defendant who blabs statements in against him at least?  Well then, a lot of times you have to have two juries, for example, or you'll just have separate juries so that the jury for the one co-defendant who didn't say anything can't be convicted because of another co-defendant's statement whose attorney does not have the opportunity to cross-examine him.

Importance Of Having An Experienced Criminal Lawyer

When it comes to co-defendant's statements, the legal landscape can get quite complex.  If you find yourself in a situation where you're charged with a conspiracy and your co-defendants are making statements, it's crucial to sit down with your attorney.  Share with them what happened and your level of involvement, and let them handle the task of keeping these co-defendant's statements out of the equation against you. This is especially important when you don't have the chance to cross-examine or question that particular co-defendant. Having an experienced criminal lawyer by your side can provide the reassurance and guidance you need in such a challenging situation.

You know, it's one thing if you want to say a bunch of stuff and get yourself in trouble.  Don't bring other people down with you, and that's really what we're looking out for when somebody makes a statement, and the prosecutors are trying to use that statement against other co-defendants.  That's something that definitely needs to be blocked.

Jailhouse Informants

Another thing I see the police doing very effectively is they'll use jailhouse informants to try and talk to people, which is a very effective tool that can be used.  They'll also put co-defendants together and just let them start talking to each other.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Those statements can all be used against somebody. It's important to be aware of these tactics, as they can lead to co-defendants inadvertently incriminating each other.

So, when people advise you to keep your mouth shut, there's a good reason for it.  In my twenty-five years of handling criminal cases, I've often found that the most compelling evidence the prosecutors typically have at trial is the defendant's own statement. This is why it's crucial to be cautious and aware of the potential risks when dealing with law enforcement. Remember, your words can be used against you. If you find yourself in such a situation, don't hesitate to contact our law firm to review your case.