Also known as: joint defendants · joint-defendant · codefendant · co-defendant
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A defendant joined with one or more others as a party in the same civil action or criminal prosecution. The joinder subjects each to the same proceeding and permits claims or evidence involving multiple parties to be resolved together.
Jeanette Jensen and Jessica Jacobs were indicted together on fraud charges. Police arranged for an informant to record their jailhouse discussion about the scheme. The recording captured incriminating statements from both. The court suppressed the statements obtained from the joint defendant because the deliberate elicitation violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Jada Jones sued Jones Petroleum and Jarvis Aviation in state court for breach of contract. Jones Petroleum removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. Jarvis Aviation never consented to removal. The court remanded because all properly joined and served joint defendants must join or consent to removal.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Judy Jacobs and Jeffrey Jha were tried jointly for robbery. The prosecution introduced a confession by Jha that named Jacobs as the getaway driver. Jha did not testify. The court held the admission violated Jacobs's confrontation rights even with a limiting instruction because the joint defendant had no opportunity for cross-examination.
Jacob Jennings and Jeanette Jensen were stopped in a borrowed car. Officers found contraband during a search. Jennings moved to suppress the evidence. The court denied the motion because a joint defendant who was merely a passenger lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle.
Jessica Jacobs and Jada Jones faced bank robbery charges. Jacobs accepted a plea deal that required her to testify against Jones. The court accepted the plea after confirming it was voluntary. The joint defendant's agreement did not automatically bind Jones or require her consent.
Judy Jacobs and Jeffrey Jha were convicted after a joint trial that included an improper comment on Jacobs's silence. The appellate court applied harmless-error analysis to the constitutional violation. It concluded the error did not affect the verdict against the joint defendant because overwhelming independent evidence supported the conviction.
Yes. Each joint defendant retains a separate Sixth Amendment right to counsel once indicted. Police may not deliberately elicit incriminating statements from one through the other without counsel present.
Supporting sources
Admission violates the Confrontation Clause in a joint trial if the non-testifying co-defendant's confession directly implicates the defendant, even with a limiting instruction. Redactions that obviously point to the defendant are also insufficient.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule of unanimity requires every properly joined and served defendant to join in or consent to removal. Failure by any joint defendant renders the removal procedurally defective and subject to remand.
Supporting sources
…Sylvia's statement did not fall under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, it bore guarantees of trustworthiness: " [W]hen a codefendant's confession is virtually identical [to, i. e. , interlocks with,] that of a defendant, it may be deemed reliable.'" 147 Wash. 2d 424, 437, 54 P. 3d 656, 663 (2002) (quoting State v.…