![]() Samia was tried with two other men who carried out the attack on the orders of Paul LeRoux, a South African who led an international crime organization and cooperated with federal authorities after his arrest in 2012. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority decision “undermines a vital constitutional protection for the accused.” The court’s three liberal justices dissented. Thomas said Samia did not deserve a new trial because the confession “did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction.” ![]() Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his majority opinion that there was no violation of the constitutional provision that gives a defendant the right to confront his accuser. The jury also was told not to consider the confession in assessing Samia’s guilt. ![]() The confession was altered to substitute “someone” or “the other person” every time Samia’s name was mentioned. The co-defendant did not testify in his own defense so there was no opportunity for Samia’s trial lawyers to question the man.īut the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, said prosecutors had done enough to protect Samia’s rights. The confession unfairly implicated Samia as the trigger man, in violation of his constitutional rights, Samia’s lawyers said. WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction of a man serving a life sentence for his role on an international “kill team” in a case about what happens when one person’s confession might also implicate someone else on trial.Īdam Samia’s lawyers had asked the court for a new trial in the killing of a real estate broker in the Philippines because they said he was convicted on the basis of a confession from another man with whom he was on trial. Business & Finance Click to expand menu.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |