Legal Definitions - interlocking confessions

Interlocking confessions refers to a situation in a criminal case where two or more defendants, who are accused of the same crime, each provide a confession that is consistent with the others in its essential details. While the confessions don't have to be identical word-for-word, they align on the critical facts of the crime, such as who was involved, what happened, and when and where it occurred. These confessions essentially corroborate, or support, each other's truthfulness.

• Example 1: Bank Robbery

  Two individuals, Liam and Noah, are arrested for robbing a local bank. Separately, and without knowing what the other has said, Liam confesses that he drove the getaway car while Noah went inside with a replica firearm to demand money. Noah, in his own confession, states that Liam waited in the car while he entered the bank, brandished a replica firearm, and took cash from the tellers.

  This illustrates interlocking confessions because both Liam's and Noah's statements independently describe the same sequence of events, the specific roles each played, and the method used (replica firearm), thereby corroborating each other's account of the robbery.

• Example 2: Arson

  Three teenagers, Olivia, Peter, and Quinn, are suspected of setting fire to an abandoned building. When questioned individually, Olivia admits to being present and pouring gasoline on the floor, while Peter confesses to lighting the match and throwing it. Quinn, in her statement, confirms that she watched Olivia pour the gasoline and Peter light the fire, and that they had planned it together.

  These confessions interlock because, despite each person describing their own actions and observations, their statements collectively paint a consistent picture of the arson event, including who participated, what they did, and their shared intent, thereby reinforcing the credibility of each other's accounts.

• Example 3: Embezzlement Scheme

  A company's accountant, Rachel, and its purchasing manager, Sam, are arrested for an embezzlement scheme. Rachel confesses that she created fake invoices for non-existent services and processed payments to a shell company owned by Sam. Sam, in his separate confession, admits to setting up the shell company and receiving payments from Rachel for the fake invoices, detailing the amounts and dates that largely match Rachel's account.

  These confessions are interlocking because they independently describe the same criminal enterprise, identifying each other's roles, the type of fraudulent activity, and the financial transactions involved, thus providing mutual corroboration for the embezzlement scheme.