초록 close

The codefendants are the men who are indicted in the same criminal trial of same criminal procedure. The codefendant always need not accomplice relation, the several indictments are judged by a single decision. Assume a case in which defendants A and B have been lawfully joined for trial, but at that trial the prosecution intends to offer against A a confession by him stating, in effect, that he and B committed the crime. That right of a defendant in criminal case to confront the witnesses against him would be violated if A, by his confession, was witness against B but could not be cross-examined. So to speak, where the powerfully incriminating judical statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side by side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the judge in a joint trial. In fact, it may that "interlocking" bears a positively inverse relationship to devastation. A codefendant confession will be relatively harmless if the incriminating story it tells is different from that which the defendant himself is alleged to have told, but enormously damaging if it confirms, in all essential respects, the defendant alleged confession. It might be otherwise if the defendant were standing by his confession, in which case it could be said that the The codefendant confession does no more than support the defendant very own case as corroborating evidence. And it might be otherwise if the defendant denies about his confession, in which case it must not be said that the codefendant confession is requires as corroborating evidence that supports the defendant very own case. The Korean criminal procedure law require disclosure of all relevant written or recorded and oral statements of a codefendant. There are many problems in jointed trial of codefendants. The focus here is on giving the defense that information which will be critical in its determination as to whether to seek a severance. If codefendant is a coconspirator and he made an incriminating statement in the course of conspiracy, that statement will be admissible against the defendant through the testimony of the person whom the statement was made. In conclusion, the testimony of codefendant about other codefendant should not be admissible as the evidence, and need to be corroborating evidence.