opinion: CRUZ v. NEW YORK
  No. 85-5939.
  Argued December 1, 1986
  Decided April 21, 1987
  Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Powell and O’Connor, JJ., joined, post, p. 194.
  Robert S. Dean argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Philip L. Weinstein.
  Peter D. Coddington argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Mario Merola.
  Robert H. Klonoff argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Trott, and Deputy Solicitor General Bryson.
  Justice Scalia
  delivered the opinion of the Court.
  In Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), we held that a defendant is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his codefendant’s incriminating confession is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the co-defendant. In Parker v. Randolph, 442 U. S. 62 (1979), we considered, but were unable authoritatively to resolve, the question whether Bruton applies where the defendant’s own confession, corroborating that of his codefendant, is introduced against him. We resolve that question today.
  HH
  Jerry Cruz was murdered on March 15, 1982. That is not the murder for which petitioner was tried and convicted, but the investigation of the one led to the solving of the other. On the day following Jerry Cruz’s murder, and on several later occasions, the police talked to Jerry’s brother Norberto about the killing. On April 27, Norberto for the first time informed the police of a November 29, 1981, visit by petitioner Eulogio Cruz and his brother Benjamin to the apartment Norberto shared with Jerry. (Eulogio and Benjamin Cruz were longtime friends of Norberto and Jerry Cruz, but the two sets of brothers were not related.) Norberto said that at the time of the visit Eulogio was nervous and was wearing a bloodstained bandage around his arm. According to Norberto, Eulogio confided that he and Benjamin had gone to a Bronx gas station the night before, intending to rob it; that Eulogio and the attendant had struggled; and that, after the attendant had grabbed a gun from behind a counter and shot Eulogio in the arm, Benjamin had killed him. Norberto claimed that Benjamin gave a similar account of the incident.
  On May 3, 1982, the police questioned Benjamin about the murder of Jerry Cruz. He strongly denied any connection with that homicide and became frustrated when the police seemed unwilling to believe him. Suddenly, to prove that he would tell the truth about killing someone if he were guilty, Benjamin spontaneously confessed to the murder of the gas station attendant. Later that evening, he gave a detailed videotaped confession to an Assistant District Attorney, in which he admitted that he, Eulogio, Jerry Cruz, and a fourth man had robbed the gas station, and that he had killed the attendant after the attendant shot Eulogio. Benjamin and Eulogio were indicted for felony murder of the station attendant.
  The brothers were tried jointly, over Eulogio’s objection. Likewise over Eulogio’s objection, the trial judge allowed the prosecutor to introduce Benjamin’s videotaped confession, warning the jury that the confession was not to be used against Eulogio. The government also called Norberto, who testified about his November 29 conversation with'Eulogio and Benjamin. Finally, the government introduced police testimony, forensic evidence, and photographs of the scene of the murder, all of which corroborated Benjamin’s videotaped confession and the statements recounted by Norberto. At the trial’s end, however, Norberto’s testimony stood as the only evidence admissible against Eulogio that directly linked him to the crime. Eulogio’s attorney tried to persuade the jury that Norberto had suspected Eulogio and Benjamin of killing his brother Jerry and had fabricated his testimony to gain revenge. Unconvinced, the jury convicted both defendants.
  The New York Court of Appeals affirmed Eulogio’s conviction, 66 N. Y. 2d 61, 485 N. E. 2d 221 (1985), adopting the reasoning of the plurality opinion in Parker that Bruton did not require the codefendant’s confession to be excluded because Eulogio had himself confessed and his confession “interlocked” with Benjamin’s. We granted certiorari. 476 U. S. 1168 (1986).
  II
  The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a criminal defendant “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” We have held that that guarantee, extended against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, includes the right to cross-examine witnesses. See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 404 (1965). Where two or more defendants are tried jointly, therefore, the pretrial confession of one of them that implicates the others is not admissible against the others unless the confessing defendant waives his Fifth Amendment rights so as to permit cross-examination.
  Ordinarily, a witness is considered to be a witness “against” a defendant for purposes of the Confrontation Clause only if his testimony is part of the body of evidence that the jury may consider in assessing his guilt. Therefore, a witness whose testimony is introduced in a joint trial with the limiting instruction that it be used only to assess the guilt of one of the defendants will not be considered to be a witness “against” the other defendants. In Bruton, however, we held that this principle will not be applied to validate, under the Confrontation Clause, introduction of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession implicating the defendant, with instructions that the jury should disregard the confession insofar as its consideration of the defendant’s guilt is concerned. We said:
  “[TJhere 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. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial. Not only are the incrimi-nations devastating to the defendant but their credibility is inevitably suspect . . . .” 391 U. S., at 135-136 (citations omitted).
  We had occasion to revisit this issue in Parker, which resembled Bruton in all major respects save one: Each of the jointly tried defendants had himself confessed, his own confession was introduced against him, and his confession recited essentially the same facts as those of his nontestifying codefendants. The plurality of four Justices found no Sixth Amendment violation. It understood Bruton to hold that the Confrontation Clause is violated only when introduction of a codefendant’s confession is “devastating” to the defendant’s case. When the defendant has himself confessed, the plurality reasoned, “[his] case has already been devastated,” 442 U. S., at 75, n. 7, so that the codefendant’s confession “will seldom, if ever, be of the ‘devastating’ character referred to in Bruton,” and impeaching that confession on cross-examination “would likely yield small advantage,” id., at 73. Thus, the plurality would have held Bruton inapplicable to cases involving interlocking confessions. The four remaining Justices participating in the case disagreed, subscribing to the view expressed by Justice Blackmun that introduction of the defendant’s own interlocking confession might, in some cases, render the violation of the Confrontation Clause harmless, but could not cause introduction of the nontestifying codefendant’s confession not to constitute a violation. Id., at 77-80 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). (Justice Blackmun alone went on to find that the interlocking confession did make the error harmless in the ease before the Court, thereby producing a majority for affirmance of the convictions. Id., at 80-81.) We face again today the issue on which the Court was evenly divided in Parker.
  We adopt the approach espoused by Justice Blackmun. While “devastating” practical effect was one of the factors that Bruton considered in assessing whether the Confrontation Clause might sometimes require departure from the general rule that jury instructions suffice to exclude improper testimony, 391 U. S., at 136, it did not suggest that the existence of such an effect should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Rather, that factor was one of the justifications for excepting from the general rule the entire category of co-defendant confessions that implicate the defendant in the crime. It is impossible to imagine why there should be excluded from that category, as generally not “devastating,” codefendant confessions that “interlock” with the defendant’s own confession. “[T]he infinite variability of inculpatory statements (whether made by defendants or codefendants), and of their likely effect on juries, makes [the assumption that an interlocking confession will preclude devastation] untenable.” Parker, 442 U. S., at 84 (Stevens, J., dissenting). In this case, for example, the precise content and even the existence of petitioner’s own confession were open to question, since they depended upon acceptance of Norberto’s testimony, whereas the incriminating confession of codefen-dant Benjamin was on videotape.
  In fact, it seems to us that “interlocking” bears a positively inverse relationship to devastation. A codefendant’s 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’s alleged confession. It might be otherwise if the defendant were standing by his confession, in which case it could be said that the codefen-dant’s confession does no more than support the defendant’s very own case. But in the real world of criminal litigation, the defendant is seeking to avoid his confession — on the ground that it was not accurately reported, or that it was not really true when made. In the present case, for example, petitioner sought to establish that Norberto had a motive for falsely reporting a confession that never in fact occurred. In such circumstances a codefendant’s confession that corroborates the defendant’s confession significantly harms the defendant’s case, whereas one that is positively incompatible gives credence to the defendant’s assertion that his own alleged confession was nonexistent or false. Quite obviously, what the “interlocking” nature of the codefendant’s confession pertains to is not its harmfulness but rather its reliability: If it confirms essentially the same facts as the defendant’s own confession it is more likely to be true. Its reliability, however, may be relevant to whether the confession should (despite the lack of opportunity for cross-examination) be admitted as evidence against the defendant, see Lee v. Illinois, 476 U. S. 530 (1986), but cannot conceivably be relevant to whether, assuming it cannot be admitted, the jury is likely to obey the instruction to disregard it, or the jury’s failure to obey is likely to be inconsequential. The law cannot command respect if such an inexplicable exception to a supposed constitutional imperative is adopted. Having decided Bru-ton, we must face the honest consequences of what it holds.
  The dissent makes no effort to respond to these points, urging instead a rejection of our “remorseless logic” in favor of “common sense and judgment.” See post, at 197. But those qualities, even in their most remorseless form, are not separable. It seems to us illogical, and therefore contrary to common sense and good judgment, to believe that codefen-dant confessions are less likely to be taken into account by the jury the more they are corroborated by the defendant’s own admissions; or that they are less likely to be harmful when they confirm the validity of the defendant’s alleged confession. Far from carrying Bruton “to the outer limits of its logic,” ibid., our holding here does no more than reaffirm its central proposition. This case is indistinguishable from Bruton with respect to those factors the Court has deemed relevant in this area: the likelihood that the instruction will be disregarded, Bruton, 391 U. S., at 135; the probability that such disregard will have a devastating effect, id., at 136; and the determinability of these facts in advance of trial, Richardson v. Marsh, post, at 208.
  We hold that, where a nontestifying codefendant’s confession incriminating the defendant is not directly admissible against the defendant, see Lee v. Illinois, supra, the Confrontation Clause bars its admission at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed not to consider it against the defendant, and even if the defendant’s own confession is admitted against him. Of course, the defendant’s confession may be considered at trial in assessing whether his codefendant’s statements are supported by sufficient “indicia of reliability” to be directly admissible against him (assuming the “unavailability” of the codefendant) despite the lack of opportunity for cross-examination, see Lee, supra, at 543-544; Bruton, supra, at 128, n. 3, and may be considered on appeal in assessing whether any Confrontation Clause violation was harmless, see Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969).
  Because the Court of Appeals analyzed petitioner’s Confrontation Clause claim under an approach we have now rejected, we reverse and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
  So ordered.
choices: Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Federated States of Micronesia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Marshall Islands Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Palau Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming United States Interstate Compact Philippines Indian Dakota