People v. Zavarro, 32 N.Y.2d 6 (1973)

In a joint trial, the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that implicates the other defendant violates the implicated defendant’s right to confrontation, even if the jury is instructed that the confession is only admissible against the confessing defendant.

Summary

Isaac and Mark Zavarro were jointly tried for arson. Isaac made an admission to a private party that implicated Mark in the crime. Neither defendant testified, nor did either confess to the police. The trial judge instructed the jury that Isaac’s admission was only admissible against Isaac. The New York Court of Appeals held that admitting Isaac’s confession in the joint trial was reversible error as to Mark, violating his right to confrontation. The court reasoned that the instruction was insufficient to cure the prejudice, and Mark should have been granted a separate trial. Isaac’s conviction was affirmed, while Mark’s was reversed.

Facts

Two brothers, Isaac and Mark Zavarro, were jointly charged and tried for arson.
Neither brother testified at trial.
Neither brother gave a confession to the police.
Isaac made an admission to a private party that implicated Mark in the arson.
This admission was the only evidence connecting Mark to the crime.

Procedural History

Isaac and Mark Zavarro were jointly tried and convicted of arson in a lower court.
Mark appealed his conviction, arguing that the admission of Isaac’s statement violated his right to confrontation.
The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case.

Issue(s)

Whether the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant in a joint trial violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even when the jury is instructed that the confession is only admissible against the co-defendant.

Holding

No, because under the rule established in Bruton v. United States, introducing a co-defendant’s confession that implicates another defendant is prejudicial and violates the defendant’s right to cross-examination, and this prejudice is not cured by jury instructions that the confession should only be considered against the confessing co-defendant.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the principles established in Bruton v. United States, holding that a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to only consider the confession against the co-defendant.
The court found that the trial judge’s instruction was insufficient to eradicate the error, especially since the confession was the only evidence connecting Mark to the crime.
The court reasoned that because effective redaction of Isaac’s statement was impossible, Mark should have been granted a separate trial. The court emphasized that the admission was made after the fire and was not in furtherance of any conspiracy.
The court stated that the trial judge’s instruction effectively precluded the jury from considering the conspiracy argument.