Supreme Court of the United States

Lilly v. Virginia

June 10, 1999527 U.S. 116

Summary

The Court reversed and remanded, concluding that admitting Mark Lilly's untested confession violated petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights and leaving harmless-error review to the Virginia courts. A majority also concluded that petitioner adequately preserved his constitutional claim. Stevens's four-Justice plurality, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, reasoned that accomplice confessions inculpating defendants do not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, that constitutional trustworthiness determinations require independent appellate review, and that this confession lacked particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Breyer separately suggested reconsidering the connection between confrontation rights and hearsay doctrine in a future case. Scalia viewed the recorded custodial accusation as a paradigmatic confrontation violation and joined Parts I, II, and VI. Thomas joined Parts I and VI, adhered to his formalized-testimonial-material approach, and opposed the plurality's broader analysis. Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor and Kennedy, concurred in the judgment on the narrower ground that the blame-shifting portions of this custodial confession could not satisfy a firmly rooted exception; he would have remanded for consideration of particularized trustworthiness as well as harmless error and favored deferential review of trustworthiness determinations.

Holding

  • Preservation of the federal constitutional claim.. Petitioner adequately presented his Confrontation Clause challenge to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
  • Whether the accomplice confession qualified under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.. The plurality concluded that accomplice confessions inculpating a criminal defendant do not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception for Confrontation Clause purposes.
  • Standard of appellate review for constitutional trustworthiness determinations.. The plurality concluded that appellate courts should independently review whether proffered guarantees of trustworthiness satisfy the Confrontation Clause.
  • Admissibility of Mark Lilly's untested confession.. Admission of Mark Lilly's confession violated petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights.
  • Further proceedings after the confrontation violation.. The Virginia courts must initially consider whether the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Docket 98-5881

Cited authorities

  • CA10
  • 26 U. Cin. L. Rev. 575
  • 86 Geo. L.J. 1011
  • 76 Minn. L. Rev. 557
  • Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3)
  • Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.345
  • Ga. Code Ann. § 24-3-8

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF