WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled against an American convicted in a murder-for-hire plot, finding the co-defendant's confession that led to Adam Samia’s guilty verdict did not violate the Constitution.
“Prosecutors have long tried criminal defendants jointly in cases where the defendants are alleged to have engaged in a common criminal scheme,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority.
Led by Justice Elena Kagan, the three liberal justices dissented from the ruling. Kagan said the foundation of the court’s precedent on introducing confessions might be on the chopping block
“Now, defendants in joint trials will not have the chance to confront some of the most damaging witnesses against them,” the Obama appointee wrote. “And a constitutional right once guaranteeing that opportunity will no longer. It will become, in joint trials, a shell of its former self.”
Samia left North Carolina in 2011 to work for a security company in the Philippines. Echelon Associates, however, was a front company for the international criminal cartel boss Paul LeRoux. The infamous crime leader has been connected to arms and technology deals with Iran and North Korea, attempts at warlordism in Africa, and the plot of a coup d’etat in the Seychelles. LeRoux used Echelon Associates to employ a team of mercenaries that carried out beatings, shootings, and sometimes killings.
The government claims Samia was recruited as a mercenary for the group in 2008 to carry out assassinations. A manager for LeRoux, Joseph Hunter, was instructed to put together a “kill team” to take to the Philippines. Hunter contacted Samia for the job, claiming he was wanted “for Ninja stuff.” Samia expressed interest in the job and even recommended his friend Carl David Stillwell. Samia and Stillwell traveled to Manila in 2012.
LeRoux placed a target on a local real estate broker, Catherine Lee, believing she stole money from him. Samia and Stillwell were allegedly instructed to act as real estate buyers as a front to murder Lee.
Lee was found dead on Feb. 13, 2012, having been shot in the face twice at close range. After her body was discovered, Samia and Stillwell began transferring money into their accounts in the U.S. Samia would transfer a total of $32,000.
After being arrested by the Drug Enforcement Administration later that year, LeRoux became a cooperating witness. Hunter, Samia, and Stillwell would all be arrested in the years following.
In 2017, Samia and Stillwell were indicted on murder-for-hire charges and were tried together alongside Hunter.
The government wanted to use Stillwell’s confession that named Samia as his partner in the murder. Under the Supreme Court’s 1968 precedent of Bruton v. United States, a confessing defendant’s statement cannot be used against a non-confessing co-defendant at their joint trial. The government decided to introduce a modified version of Stillwell’s confession that eliminated Samia’s name.
Samia testified at trial, admitting he worked for Echelon and traveled to the Philippines with Stillwell. However, he claimed he did not participate in any crimes during his time with LeRoux or Echelon. He claimed the “ninja stuff” he was hired to do was a reference to martial arts training he provided.
Hunter, Stillwell, and Samia were given guilty verdicts from the jury on all counts. Samia was sentenced to life plus 10 years imprisonment. The court of appeals offered a fractured ruling, affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding. Samia’s convictions for conspiring to kidnap and murder in a foreign country and conspiring to launder money were upheld. The appeals court also rejected arguments that Stillwell’s modified confession violated Samia’s rights.
The government argued not accepting the modified confession would expand Bruton, noting previous unsuccessful attempts were rejected as ahistorical and impractical.
“The court of appeals correctly upheld the admission of Stillwell’s modified statement, which did not facially incriminate petitioner and was subject to repeated instructions to consider it only as to Stillwell,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government’s brief. “In contending otherwise, petitioner would erode the bedrock presumption that juries conscientiously follow their instructions by expanding the limited exception in Bruton v. United States beyond co-defendant confessions with explicit or immediately obvious references to the defendant.”
Samia argued redaction is insufficient to avoid a confrontation clause violation.
“This Court’s cases establish a practical rule that redaction is insufficient to avoid a Confrontation Clause violation if the jury is likely to infer that the confession identifies the defendant as an accomplice,” Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, representing Samia, wrote in a brief before the court. “Where the surrounding context of the trial creates that condition, the confession must be excluded.”
Thomas said there is not a confrontation clause problem with Stillwell’s confession because courts can offer limiting instructions to jurors when considering the confession.
“Considering longstanding historical practice, the general presumption that jurors follow their instructions, and the relevant precedents of this Court, we conclude that it does not,” the Bush appointee wrote.
According to Thomas, witness testimony during a joint trial is not ordinarily considered to be against the other defendant if the jury is instructed to consider it only against the co-defendant.
“This general rule is consistent with the text of the Clause, historical practice, and the law’s reliance on limiting instructions in other contexts,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas said the confrontation clause is not a guarantee that witness testimony in a joint trial will never result in prejudice.
“The Confrontation Clause ensures that defendants have the opportunity to confront witnesses against them, but it does not provide a freestanding guarantee against the risk of potential prejudice that may arise inferentially in a joint trial,” Thomas wrote. “Here, the Clause was not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction.”
Attorneys for Samia and the Department of Justice declined the comment on the ruling.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
