Question

A man and a woman were arrested and charged with conspiring to blow up a federal government building. After being given Miranda warnings, they were questioned separately and each of them gave a written confession. The confessions interlocked with each other, implicating both of the defendants as being involved in every stage of the conspiracy. Subsequently, the woman attempted to retract her confession, claiming that it was false. At a preliminary hearing, the judge rejected her claim. Both defendants were tried together, and the prosecutor introduced both confessions into evidence. At trial, the woman testified that she was not involved in any conspiracy and that her confession was fabricated. Both defendants were found guilty by the jury.The woman challenged her conviction on appeal because of the admission of the man's confession.If the woman succeeds, what is the likely reason?A. The man's confession was more incriminatory to her than her own confession.B. The jury was not instructed to consider the man's confession as evidence only of his guilt and not of the woman's.C. The man refused to testify at trial and therefore was not subject to cross-examination regarding his confession.D. The man testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination but denied making the confession attributed to him.

Answer 1

C. The man refused to testify at trial and therefore was not subject to cross-examination regarding his confession.

Step-by-step explanation:

Under the Sixth Amendment a defendant has the right to face unfavorable evidence at court in a criminal prosecution. When two persons are being charged together and one has made a confession involving the other, the right to arbitration usually forbids the use of that admission as the other defendant can not force the confessing co-defendant to take the stand for cross-examination.A confession of a co-defendant is inadmissible even if it interlocks with the self-confession admitted by the defendant. If the man refused to take the stand and cross-examine himself, instead his evidence was not fully accepted because it breached the rights of the woman's Confrontation Clause.