The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 13 to review the case of Adam Samia, who was convicted in a murder-for-hire scheme as a result of another person’s legally questionable confession.
The decision came by way of an unsigned order. The justices didn’t explain why they acted, and no justices dissented from the ruling.
Samia had been living in North Carolina working as a security guard on the family farm, according to the petition he filed with the Supreme Court. In 2011, he traveled to the Philippines, prepared to perform security work for Echelon Associates.
Echelon turned out to be a front company for Paul LeRoux, a South African citizen who headed a criminal empire operating on four continents. LeRoux, who cooperated with authorities after his arrest, ordered the murder of Catherine Lee, a Filipina real estate agent who LeRoux believed stole money from him in an earlier transaction, the document states.
All three co-defendants, including Samia, were convicted by a federal jury in the Southern District of New York. U.S. law allows for defendants accused of murder in foreign lands to be tried in the United States.
Samia was convicted of conspiring to commit murder for hire, murder for hire, conspiracy to kidnap and murder in a foreign country, using or carrying a firearm in the process of committing murder, and conspiring to launder money. He was sentenced to life in prison. A court of appeals affirmed the convictions in part.
He was convicted on the strength of a confession provided by one of the co-defendants. But the individual didn’t testify at trial in his own defense, so Samia’s attorney had no opportunity to cross-examine the person. The government of the Philippines also refused to compel the testimony of various witnesses whom Samia said he needed for his defense. His attorneys argued that the evidence against their client fell short of what was needed for a conviction.
Samia argued in his petition that his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were violated. The amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
He noted in court papers that in 1968, the Supreme Court held in Bruton v. United States that the Constitution forbids the government from introducing an out-of-court confession of a co-defendant that incriminates another defendant in a joint trial. The court “reasoned that allowing such statements to be admitted without the opportunity for cross-examination would violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.”
“Even if he had not thereby relinquished such a challenge, it lacks merit, and he significantly overstates any disagreement in the courts of appeals on the question presented. This case would be an unsuitable vehicle for addressing the question, because even if his argument were properly raised, any error was harmless,” the brief reads.
“This Court has denied multiple petitions for writs of certiorari raising the same issue.”
The Epoch Times reached out to Samia’s attorney, Kannon K. Shanmugam of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison LLP, and the U.S. Department of Justice for comment but didn’t receive a reply from either by press time.
The case is Samia v. United States, court file 22-196.
