Short answer. Possibly, but not automatically. A confession that exposes the confessor to criminal liability and is offered to clear you is admissible only if the confessor is dead or unable to testify, the statement was genuinely against their own interest, and corroborating circumstances clearly show the statement is trustworthy.
What the law says
A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement
Rule 130, Section 40 — Declaration against interest. Read the full provision →
The general rule this falls under
A declaration against interest lets a court receive a statement even though the person who made it cannot be cross-examined, on the theory that people do not ordinarily say things that hurt themselves unless those things are true. It applies only where the declarant is deceased or unable to testify, and only where the statement was, at the time made, so contrary to that person's own interest that a reasonable person would not have said it unless believing it true.
Why a confession to your crime is treated differently
A confession admitting someone else committed the crime you are charged with is a specific, riskier kind of declaration against interest: it exposes the confessor to criminal liability, and it is being offered to exculpate you rather than to prove something against the confessor. Because a false confession from a sympathetic third party is an easy way to manufacture reasonable doubt, this particular use is not admitted on the same easy terms as an ordinary declaration against interest, precisely because it binds the outcome of a criminal case rather than a private dispute over property or money.
What has to be shown before it can come in
The statement is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate its trustworthiness. That means the confession alone, however detailed or sincere it sounds, is not enough — you need independent circumstances pointing to its reliability before a court will let it in at all. What counts as sufficient corroboration is decided case by case, on the specific facts actually available to the court at trial.
The confessor's unavailability still has to be real
Even with strong corroboration, the exception only opens the door when the confessor is genuinely deceased or unable to testify — someone who is merely reluctant, unwilling, or hard to locate does not automatically qualify. If the confessor could in fact be produced to testify directly, that direct testimony, not the out-of-court statement, is generally what the rule expects you to rely on — the exception exists to cover a genuine gap in available evidence, not to offer a shortcut around it.