In the case of Benjamin Lee Lilly v. Virginia, 1998, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him was violated when a trial court admitted into evidence his non-testifying co-defendant's confession implicating both in murder. The crime involved Lilly and his half-brother Mark who were accused of robbing and murdering a man after escaping from prison. During interrogation, Mark confessed to their involvement in the crime but refused to testify at trial. Despite this refusal, his confession was used as evidence against Lilly which led to his conviction for capital murder among other charges by the jury. The Supreme Court held that admitting such confessions violates an accused person’s constitutional rights under Confrontation Clause because it denies them an opportunity to cross-examine testimonial statements made by others implicating them in crimes. This ruling overturned Lilly’s conviction on grounds that he had been denied fair trial due process rights guaranteed under Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Benjamin Lee Lilly v. Virginia, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with historical practices and precedents regarding hearsay evidence. He contended that accomplice confessions have been traditionally admissible as exceptions to the rule against hearsay, even when they incriminate a defendant. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "testimonial" statements under Crawford v. Washington (2004), arguing it should not be applied retroactively to this case from 1998 before Crawford was decided upon in 2004. The justice also criticized the Court’s reliance on English common law cases which were not directly applicable or relevant to American jurisprudence or this particular case at hand.