Can a defendant cross-examine his own statements?

Defendants argue the manner in which the statements were introduced precluded effective cross-examination. Not so. The trial court acknowledged each one could cross-examine the interrogating officer about what else he said or did. Defendants' real complaint is that they could not cross-examine in a manner that would allow them to elicit "other parts" of a statement "where blame is laid on other . . . codefendants." But as the trial judge noted that objection would be valid only if a codefendant's statements could be introduced in "a severed trial . . . ." Clearly, testimonial statements by a codefendant who has not been cross-examined and is unavailable as a trial witness could not be introduced even if that defendant was tried separately. (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 68-69 [124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177].)