same finding under a state rule of evidence that is analogous to the federal rule
How later courts described this case
- same finding under a state rule of evidence that is analogous to the federal rule
- "`a statement (confession) admitting guilt and implicating another person in the same crime, and made while in custody, might well be motivated by a desire to curry favor with the authorities and, hence, fail to qualify as being against interest,'" and, without conditions clearly indicating the trustworthiness of the statement, held inadmissible
- declining to find adoptive admission in custodial setting under Ohio Rules of Evidence
- applying Ohio evidentiary law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In this habeas corpus case collaterally attacking petitioner’s Ohio burglary conviction, I do not agree with the Court that state court admission of deceased co-conspirator Martin’s incriminating statement made in petitioner’s presence violated the Confrontation Clause. By shrugging his shoulders rather than denying or disagreeing with confederate Martin’s statement, petitioner adopted it in the sense that he said, in effect, “I do not contest what he said.” Martin’s statement is reliable because it expressly admits that both participated in the crime—and hence is a statement against Martin’s penal interest—and because it was made in petitioner’s presence. Surely such an uncontested statement incriminating both has sufficient reliability to meet the test of the Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause requires state courts as well as federal, to observe basic principles of fairness in admitting hearsay testimony. I do not see any possibility of unfairness when a state court admits an incriminating statement of a deceased co-conspirator made directly in the presence of and acknowledged and not disputed by the defendant when the truth of the incriminating statement is fully and completely corroborated by other independent evidence.