On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Adam Samia serving a life sentence for his role on an international hit squad. The case was about what happens in a trial when one person’s confession implicates someone else.
Samia’s lawyers said that another man’s confession unfairly implicated their client as the trigger man. And this was a violation of his constitutional rights, Samia’s lawyers said.
The co-defendant did not testify in his own defense so there was no opportunity for Samia’s trial lawyers to question the man.
But the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, said prosecutors had done enough to protect Samia’s rights.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. He claimed that there was no violation of the constitutional provision that gives a defendant the right to confront his accuser.
The confession was altered to substitute “someone” or “the other person” whenever Samia’s name was mentioned. And the judge’s instructions to the jury warned them not to consider the confession in assessing Samia’s guilt.
