# Samia v. United States/Opinion of the Court

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 22–196
ADAM SAMIA, AKA SAL, AKA ADAM SAMIC, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT [June 23, 2023]
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
Prosecutors have long tried criminal defendants jointly in cases where the defendants are alleged to have engaged in a common criminal scheme. However, when prosecutors seek to introduce a nontestifying defendant’s confession implicating his codefendants, a constitutional concern may arise. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment states that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” And, in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), this Court “held that a defendant is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his nontestifying codefendant’s confession naming him as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 201–202 (1987).
Here, we must determine whether the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession where (1) the confession has been modified to avoid directly identifying the nonconfessing codefendant ​and (2) the court offers a limiting instruction that jurors may consider the confession only with respect to the confessing codefendant. 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.
I
Petitioner Adam Samia traveled to the Philippines in 2012 to work for crime lord Paul LeRoux. While there, LeRoux tasked Samia, Joseph Hunter, and Carl Stillwell with killing Catherine Lee, a local real-estate broker who LeRoux believed had stolen money from him. Lee was found dead shortly thereafter, shot twice in the face at close range.
Later that year, LeRoux was arrested by the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and became a cooperating witness for the Government. Hunter, Samia, and Stillwell were arrested thereafter. During a search of Samia’s home, law enforcement found a camera containing surveillance photographs of Lee’s home as well as a key to the van in which Lee had been murdered. And, during Stillwell’s arrest, law enforcement found a cell phone containing thumbnail images of Lee’s dead body. Later, during a postarrest interview with DEA agents, Stillwell waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and gave a confession. Stillwell admitted that he had been in the van when Lee was killed, but he claimed that he was only the driver and that Samia had shot Lee.
The Government charged all three men in a multicount indictment. Samia and Stillwell were each charged with conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §1958(a); murder-for-hire, in violation of §1958(a); conspiracy to murder and kidnap in a foreign country, in violation of §956(a)(1); causing death with a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of ​§§924(c)(1)(A) and (j); and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of §1956(h). Hunter was charged with all but the money-laundering count. Thereafter, the Government tried all three men jointly in the Southern District of New York. While Hunter and Stillwell admitted that they had participated in the murder, Samia maintained his innocence.
Prior to trial, the Government moved in limine to admit Stillwell’s confession. But, because Stillwell would not testify and the full confession inculpated Samia, the Government proposed that an agent testify as to the content of Stillwell’s confession in a way that eliminated Samia’s name while avoiding any obvious indications of redaction. The District Court granted the Government’s motion but required further alterations to ensure consistency with its understanding of this Court’s Confrontation Clause precedents, including Bruton.
At trial, the Government’s theory of the case was that Hunter had hired Samia and Stillwell to pose as real-estate buyers and visit properties with Lee. The Government also sought to prove that Samia, Stillwell, and Lee were in a van that Stillwell was driving when Samia shot Lee. During its case in chief, in accordance with the court’s ruling on its motion in limine, the Government presented testimony about Stillwell’s confession through DEA Agent Eric Stouch. Stouch recounted the key portion of Stillwell’s confession implicating Samia as follows:
   “Q. Did [Stillwell] say where [the victim] was when she was killed?
Other portions of Stouch’s testimony also used the “other person” descriptor to refer to someone with whom Stillwell had traveled and lived and who carried a particular firearm. During Stouch’s testimony, the District Court instructed the jury that his testimony was admissible only as to Stillwell and should not be considered as to Samia or Hunter. The District Court later provided a similar limiting instruction before the jury began its deliberations.
The jury convicted Samia and his codefendants on all counts, and the District Court subsequently denied Samia’s post-trial motions. The District Court then sentenced Samia to life plus 10 years’ imprisonment.
Samia appealed to the Second Circuit. On appeal, and as relevant here, he argued that the admission of Stillwell’s confession—even as altered and with a limiting instruction—was constitutional error because other evidence and statements at trial enabled the jury to immediately infer that the “other person” described in the confession was Samia himself. He noted that, during opening statements, the Government had asserted that Stillwell drove the van while Samia “was in the passenger seat,” and that Samia pulled out a gun, “turned around, aimed carefully and shot [Lee].” Id., at 52. He also pointed out that the Government had stated that “Stillwell admitted to driving the car while the man he was with turned around and shot [Lee].” Id., at 58. So, even though Samia’s position in the van and shooting of Lee were relevant to the Government’s theory of the case with or without Stillwell’s confession, Samia argued that those statements would allow the jury to infer that he was the “other person” in Stillwell’s confession.
Samia made the same argument with respect to several pieces of trial evidence. For example, he pointed out that ​the Government had elicited testimony that Samia and Stillwell coordinated their travel to the Philippines and lived together there. Samia noted that there was testimony that he had the type of gun that was used to shoot Lee. And, he emphasized that, in its closing argument, the Government argued to the jury that video evidence showing Hunter speaking about hiring two men to murder Lee was “admissible against all three defendants,” allowing the jury to infer that Samia and Stillwell were co-conspirators. Id., at 199. Finally, Samia argued that, while discussing Stillwell’s confession, the prosecution had recounted how Stillwell “described a time when the other person he was with [in the Philippines] pulled the trigger on that woman in a van that Stillwell was driving.” Ibid.
The Second Circuit rejected Samia’s view, holding that the admission of Stillwell’s confession did not violate Samia’s Confrontation Clause rights. Applying Circuit precedent, it pointed to the established practice of replacing a defendant’s name with a neutral noun or pronoun in a nontestifying codefendant’s confession. The Second Circuit also noted that its inquiry considered the altered confession separate from the other evidence that had been introduced at trial.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the admission of Stillwell’s altered confession, subject to a limiting instruction, violated Samia’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. 598 U. S. ___ (2022).
II
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause guarantees the right of a criminal defendant “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” As we have explained, this Clause forbids the introduction of out-of-court “testimonial” statements unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had the chance to cross-examine the witness previously. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, ​53–54 (2004). Because Stillwell’s formal, Mirandized confession to authorities, which the Government sought to introduce at trial, is testimonial, it falls within the Clause’s ambit. See id., at 52 (“Statements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations are … testimonial under even a narrow standard”); Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305, 329 (2009) (Thomas, J., concurring) (explaining that “the Confrontation Clause is implicated by extrajudicial statements … contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Nonetheless, the Confrontation Clause applies only to witnesses “against the accused.” Crawford, 541 U. S., at 50. And, “[o]rdinarily, a witness whose testimony is introduced at a joint trial is not considered to be a witness ‘against’ a defendant if the jury is instructed to consider that testimony only against a codefendant.” Richardson, 481 U. S., at 206. This general rule is consistent with the text of the Clause, historical practice, and the law’s reliance on limiting instructions in other contexts.
A
For most of our Nation’s history, longstanding practice allowed a nontestifying codefendant’s confession to be admitted in a joint trial so long as the jury was properly instructed not to consider it against the nonconfessing defendant. While some courts would omit the defendant’s name or substitute a reference to “another person” (or the like), it is unclear whether any courts considered such alterations to be necessary as a categorical matter. In any event, the combination of such alterations and an appropriate limiting instruction was generally sufficient to permit the introduction of such confessions.
One early treatise explained that, when “some part of [a confession] concerns other prisoners who are tried on the same indictment,” “all that can be done is to direct the jury ​not to take into their consideration such parts as affect the other prisoners.” S. Phillipps, Law of Evidence 82 (1816). Another noted that, in English practice, where confessions were not admissible against third persons, “the names of such persons were by most judges ordered to be omitted,” but “by other judges the names were ordered read and the jury instructed not to use the confession against them.” 3 J. Wigmore, Evidence §2100, p. 2841, and n. 5 (1904). “In the United States[,] the latter practice [was] favored.” Id., n. 5.
Considerable authority supports this approach. In Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 51, 58 (1895), the Court held that, because codefendant declarations “were not, in any view of the case, competent evidence against” another defendant, the trial court should have admitted them as evidence only against their respective declarants. Just one year later, in United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 672 (1896), a case involving a joint murder trial of three defendants, the Court approved the use of a limiting instruction to restrict the jury’s consideration of one defendant’s incriminatory statements made after the killing had occurred. Citing Sparf, the Court emphasized that the trial judge had “said, in the presence of the jury, that, of course, [the one defendant’s declarations] would be only evidence against him.” 163 U. S., at 672. State practice was in accord, permitting the introduction of nontestifying codefendants’ confessions subject only to a limiting instruction. See, e.g., State v. Workman, 15 S. C. 540, 545 (1881); Jones v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. 836, 839–840 (1878). And, though the Federal Confrontation Clause did not apply to these proceedings, state constitutions contained similar terms. See 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence §1397, pp. 155–158, n. 1 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974) (noting that virtually every state constitution during the relevant period contained a provision substantially equivalent to the Federal Confrontation Clause).
Notably, none of the early treatises or cases to which the ​parties have referred, or that we have discovered, suggests that a confession naming a codefendant must in all cases be edited to refer to “another person” (or something similar) such that the codefendant’s name is not included in the confession. Accordingly, while it is unclear whether alteration of any kind was necessary, historical practice suggests at least that altering a nontestifying codefendant’s confession not to name the defendant, coupled with a limiting instruction, was enough to permit the introduction of such confessions at least as an evidentiary matter.
B
This historical evidentiary practice is in accord with the law’s broader assumption that jurors can be relied upon to follow the trial judge’s instructions. Evidence at trial is often admitted for a limited purpose, accompanied by a limiting instruction. And, our legal system presumes that jurors will “ ‘attend closely the particular language of [such] instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow’ ” them. United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 740 (1993).
The Court has presumed, for example, that jurors will follow instructions to consider a defendant’s prior conviction only for purposes of a sentence enhancement and not in determining whether he committed the criminal acts charged. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 438, and n. 6 (1983). This presumption works in tandem with a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify against himself, by ensuring that jurors do not draw an adverse inference from his choice not to testify. Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U. S. 333, 338–341 (1978). It also applies to situations with potentially life-and-death stakes for defendants: A limiting instruction may be used to instruct jurors to consider mitigating evidence for purposes of one defendant and not another at the sentencing stage of a joint capital trial. Kansas v. Carr, 577 U. S. 108, 124–125 (2016).
​Of particular relevance here, the presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions applies to statements that are often substantially more credible and inculpatory than a codefendant’s confession. For example, this Court has held that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of Miranda can be used to impeach the defendant’s credibility, provided the jury is properly instructed not to consider them as evidence of guilt. Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222, 223–225 (1971). Such statements, elicited from the defendant himself, are often some of the most compelling evidence of guilt available to a jury. By contrast, jurors may cast a critical eye on accomplice testimony—and, in particular, self-serving accomplice testimony like Stillwell’s that accuses another of the most culpable conduct.
The presumption credits jurors by refusing to assume that they are either “too ignorant to comprehend, or were too unmindful of their duty to respect, instructions” of the court. Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451, 459 (1880). Moreover, to disregard or to make unnecessary exceptions to it “would make inroads into th[e] entire complex code of … criminal evidentiary law, and would threaten other large areas of trial jurisprudence.” Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 562 (1967). As explained below, we have no reason to do so here.
III
In Bruton v. United States, this Court “recognized a narrow exception to” the presumption that juries follow their instructions, holding “that a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial,” even with a proper instruction. Richardson, 481 U. S., at 207. In Richardson v. Marsh, the Court “decline[d] to extend [Bruton] further” to “confessions that do not name the defendant.” Id., at 211. Gray v. Maryland, 523 U. S. 185, 194 (1998), later qualified ​Richardson by holding that certain obviously redacted confessions might be “directly accusatory,” and thus fall within Bruton’s rule, even if they did not specifically use a defendant’s name.
Thus, the Court’s precedents distinguish between confessions that directly implicate a defendant and those that do so indirectly. Under these precedents, and consistent with the longstanding historical practice discussed above, the introduction here of Stillwell’s altered confession coupled with a limiting instruction did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
A 1
In Bruton, the Court considered the joint trial of George Bruton and William Evans for armed postal robbery. 391 U. S., at 124. During two pretrial interrogations, Evans confessed to a postal inspector that he and Bruton—whom he implicated by name—had committed the robbery. Ibid. The confession was introduced at trial, coupled with a limiting instruction that it not be used against Bruton. Id., at 124–125, and n. 1. This Court held that, “because of the substantial risk that the jury, despite instructions to the contrary, looked to the incriminating extrajudicial statements in determining [Bruton]’s guilt, admission of Evans’ confession in this joint trial violated [Bruton]’s right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.” Id., at 126.
The Court acknowledged that a defendant is “ ‘entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one’ ” and conceded that “[i]t is not unreasonable to conclude that in many … cases the jury can and will follow the trial judge’s instructions to disregard [certain] information.” Id., at 135 (quoting Lutwak v. United States, 344 U. S. 604, 619 (1953)). It even acknowledged that, “[i]f it were true that the jury disregarded the reference to [Bruton], no question would arise ​under the Confrontation Clause.” 391 U. S., at 126. Yet, the Court reasoned that “there are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored.” Id., at 135. Accordingly, in the Court’s view, “the introduction of Evans’ confession posed a substantial threat to [Bruton]’s right to confront the witnesses against him.” Id., at 137.
2
Later, in Richardson, the Court declined to expand the Bruton rule to a redacted confession that inculpated the defendant only when viewed in conjunction with other evidence. There, Clarissa Marsh, Benjamin Williams, and Kareem Martin were each charged with assault and murder. 481 U. S., at 202. Marsh and Williams were tried jointly for the crime. Ibid. And, at trial, the State introduced Williams’ confession, taken by police shortly after his arrest. Id., at 203. As introduced, however, “[t]he confession was redacted to omit all reference to [Marsh]—indeed, to omit all indication that anyone other than Martin and Williams participated in the crime.” Ibid. The confession largely corroborated the victim’s testimony and additionally described a conversation between Williams and Martin as they drove to the scene of the crime: “[A]ccording to Williams, Martin said that he would have to kill the victims after the robbery.” Id., at 204. Following the confession’s admission, the trial judge instructed the jury not to use it against Marsh in any way, an instruction reiterated in the jury charge at the conclusion of trial. Id., at 204–205. In her testimony, however, Marsh volunteered that, during the drive to the crime scene, she “ ‘knew that [Martin and Williams] were talking’ but could not hear the conversation because ‘the radio was on and the speaker was right in [her] ear.’ ” Id., at 204 (alternations in original). Both Marsh and ​Williams were convicted. Id., at 205.
In considering the introduction of Williams’ confession, this Court noted that, “[o]rdinarily, a witness whose testimony is introduced at a joint trial is not considered to be a witness ‘against’ a defendant if the jury is instructed to consider that testimony only against a codefendant,” emphasizing the “almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions.” Id., at 206. It then explained that Bruton represented a “narrow exception to this principle.” 481 U. S., at 207. Whereas the confession in Bruton had “ ‘expressly implicated’ the defendant and his accomplice,” the confession in Richardson “was not incriminating on its face, and became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.” 481 U. S., at 208 (citing Bruton, 391 U. S., at 124, n. 1). The former evidence, the Court explained, is “more vivid” and thus “more difficult to thrust out of mind.” 481 U. S., at 208. Additionally, in the case of inferential incrimination, the Court posited that “the judge’s instruction may well be successful in dissuading the jury from entering onto the path of inference,” leaving “no incrimination to forget.” Ibid.
3
Gray then confronted a question Richardson expressly left open: whether a confession altered “by substituting for the defendant’s name in the confession a blank space or the word ‘deleted’ ” violated the Confrontation Clause. 523 U. S., at 188; see also Richardson, 481 U. S., at 211, n. 5. In Gray, the Court considered Anthony Bell’s confession to Baltimore police, implicating himself, Kevin Gray, and ​coconspirator Jacquin Vanlandingham in a murder. 523 U. S., at 188. The prosecution sought to introduce the confession at trial, and the trial judge required that it be redacted to use the word “deleted” or “deletion” whenever Gray’s or Vanlandingham’s names appeared. Ibid. At trial, the prosecution had a police detective read the confession aloud to the jury verbatim, substituting the words “deleted” or “deletion” for Gray’s or Vanlandingham’s names. Ibid. “Immediately after” the detective finished reading the confession, “the prosecutor asked, ‘after he gave you that information, you subsequently were able to arrest Mr. Kevin Gray; is that correct?’ The officer responded, ‘That’s correct.’ ” Id., at 188–189. In instructing the jury at the close of trial, the judge specified that Bell’s confession was evidence only against Bell, admonishing the jury not to use the confession as evidence against Gray. Id., at 189. The jury convicted Bell and Gray.
This Court held that the confession was inadmissible under Bruton. It first noted that, “unlike Richardson’s redacted confession, [Bell’s] confession refer[red] directly to the ‘existence’ of the nonconfessing defendant.” 523 U. S., at 192. The Court then concluded that, when a redacted confession “simply replace[s] a name with an obvious blank space or a word such as ‘deleted’ or a symbol or other similarly obvious indications of alteration,” the evidence “so closely resemble[s] Bruton’s unredacted statements that … the law must require the same result.” Ibid. The Court reasoned that such “obvious blank[s]” would cause the jurors to speculate as to whom the omitted individual may be, “lift[ing their] eyes to [the nonconfessing defendant], sitting at counsel table, to find what will seem the obvious answer,” as the judge’s “instruction will provide an obvious reason ​for the blank.” Id., at 193. It also reasoned that “statements redacted to leave a blank or some other similarly obvious alteration” were “directly accusatory,” “point[ing] directly to the defendant … in a manner similar to Evans’ use of Bruton’s name or to a testifying codefendant’s accusatory finger.” Id., at 194.
While the Court “concede[d] that Richardson placed outside the scope of Bruton’s rule those statements that incriminate inferentially,” it explained that “inference pure and simple cannot make the critical difference, for if it did, then Richardson would also place outside Bruton’s scope confessions that use shortened first names, nicknames, [and] descriptions as unique as the ‘red-haired, bearded, one-eyed man-with-a-limp.’ ” Id., at 195. The Court elaborated:
   “That being so, Richardson must depend in significant part upon the kind of, not the simple fact of, inference. Richardson’s inferences involved statements that did not refer directly to the defendant himself and which became incriminating ‘only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.’ 481 U. S., at 208. The inferences at issue here involve statements that, despite redaction, obviously refer directly to someone, often obviously the defendant, and which involve inferences that a jury ordinarily could make immediately, even were the confession the very first item introduced at trial.” Id., at 196.
Finally, the Court stressed that its holding, which addressed only obviously redacted confessions, was sufficiently narrow to avoid “unnecessarily lead[ing] prosecutors to abandon the [relevant] confession or joint trial.” Id., at 197.
B
Viewed together, the Court’s precedents distinguish between confessions that directly implicate a defendant and ​those that do so indirectly. Richardson explicitly declined to extend Bruton’s “narrow exception” to the presumption that jurors follow their instructions beyond those confessions that occupy the former category. 481 U. S., at 207. Gray qualified but confirmed this legal standard, reiterating that the Bruton rule applies only to “directly accusatory” incriminating statements, as distinct from those that do “not refer directly to the defendant” and “bec[o]me incriminating only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.” 523 U. S., at 194, 196 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, neither Bruton, Richardson, nor Gray provides license to flyspeck trial transcripts in search of evidence that could give rise to a collateral inference that the defendant had been named in an altered confession.
Here, the District Court’s admission of Stillwell’s confession, accompanied by a limiting instruction, did not run afoul of this Court’s precedents. Stillwell’s confession was redacted to avoid naming Samia, satisfying Bruton’s rule. And, it was not obviously redacted in a manner resembling the confession in Gray; the neutral references to some “other person” were not akin to an obvious blank or the word “deleted.” In fact, the redacted confession is strikingly similar to a hypothetical modified confession we looked upon favorably in Gray, where we posited that, instead of saying “ ‘[m]e, deleted, deleted, and a few other guys,’ ” the witness could easily have said “ ‘[m]e and a few other guys.’ ” 523 U. S., at 196. Accordingly, it “fall[s] outside the narrow exception [Bruton] created.” Richardson, 481 U. S., at 208.
Moreover, it would not have been feasible to further modify Stillwell’s confession to make it appear, as in Richardson, that he had acted alone. Stillwell was charged with conspiracy and did not confess to shooting Lee. Consequently, the evidence of coordination between Stillwell and Lee’s killer (whether Samia or not) was necessary to prove an essential element of the Government’s case. In addition, ​editing the statement to exclude mention of the “other person” may have made it seem as though Stillwell and Lee were alone in the van at the time Lee was shot. Such a scenario may have led the jurors—who sat in judgment of both Samia and Stillwell—to conclude that Stillwell was the shooter, an obviously prejudicial result.
IV
As described above, expanding the Bruton rule in the way Samia proposes would be inconsistent with longstanding practice and our precedents. It would also work an unnecessary and imprudent change in law, resulting in precisely the practical effects that the Court rejected in Richardson. The Confrontation Clause rule that Samia proposes would require federal and state trial courts to conduct extensive pretrial hearings to determine whether the jury could infer from the Government’s case in its entirety that the defendant had been named in an altered confession. See Brief for Petitioner 16. That approach would be burdensome and “far from foolproof,” 481 U. S., at 209, and we decline to endorse it.
Indeed, it would be impractical to fully police juror inferences in the way Samia seems to suggest; in a criminal trial, all evidence that supports the prosecution’s theory of the case is, to some extent, mutually reinforcing. Thus, the likely practical consequence of Samia’s position would be to mandate severance whenever the prosecution wishes to introduce the confession of a nontestifying codefendant in a joint trial. But, as this Court has observed, that is “too high” a price to pay. Id., at 210. Joint trials have long “play[ed] a vital role in the criminal justice system,” preserving government resources and allowing victims to avoid repeatedly reliving trauma. Id., at 209; see also United States v. Marchant, 12 Wheat. 480, 482–483, 485 (1827) (Story, J.) (recognizing the crucial role of joint trials). Further, joint trials encourage consistent verdicts and enable ​more accurate assessments of relative culpability. See Bruton, 391 U. S., at 143 (White, J., dissenting) (“[S]eparate trials are apt to have varying consequences for legally indistinguishable defendants”). Also, separate trials “randomly favo[r] the last-tried defendants who have the advantage of knowing the prosecution’s case beforehand.” Richardson, 481 U. S., at 210.
Samia offers, as an alternative, that the Government may choose to forgo use of the confession entirely, thereby avoiding the need for severance. But, this ignores the fact that confessions are “ ‘essential to society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law.’ ” Ibid. And, as described above, Samia’s proposal is not compelled by the Confrontation Clause. *** 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. 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.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
* ↑ This Court has never opined as to whether rewriting a confession may serve as a proper method of redaction. See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 203, n. 1 (1987). Because the parties do not argue that the District Court’s imposition of further redactions was inappropriate in this case, we do not consider the issue here either.
* ↑ The Court ended on a cautionary note, explaining that the prosecutor had linked Marsh with Williams’ confession in his closing argument. Thus, the Court observed, “the prosecutor [had] sought to undo the effect of the limiting instruction by urging the jury to use Williams’ confession in evaluating [Marsh’s] case.” 481 U. S., at 211. If a claim of error on this count were preserved, the Court suggested that relief could be appropriate. Ibid.
* ↑ The prosecution also introduced a written copy of the confession with Gray’s and Vanlandigham’s names omitted, “leaving in their place blank white spaces separated by commas.” Gray, 523 U. S., at 189.