Confessions and the Right to Assistance of Counsel

VI. Confessions and the Right to Assistance of Counsel a. Massiah v. US i. Facts: Massiah was indicted for narcotics crimes. The retained a lawyer, pleaded not guilty and was released on bail. Federal agents surreptitiously listened to incriminating statements made by him to an informant and offered these statements against him at trial ii. Issue: Whether iii. The court held that Massiah was denied his 6th Amendment right to counsel 1. Federal agents had deliberately elicited from him incriminating statements after he had been indicted and in the absence of counsel iv. Petitioner was denied the basic protections of that guarantee when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel v. Rule of Law: A person who has been indicted on criminal charges has as much a constitutional right to have an attorney present during police interrogations as he does during the trial itself b. US v. Henry i. Facts: Henry was arrested and indicted for armed robbery and incarcerated at the Norfolk city jail. Nichols, an inmate in the jail who was a paid informant, told a government agent that he was housed in the same cellblock as Henry. The agent instructed him to be alert to any statements Henry made but not to ask him any questions regarding the robbery. Henry made incriminating statements to Nichols that were introduced in evidence at his trial ii. Issue: Whether the admission at trial of statements made by an accused in custody to a covert gov't informant violate the accused's 6th Amendment right to counsel iii. The court held that there was deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements in violation of Massiah because Nichols conversed with Henry, prompting him to speak and because the government had “intentionally creat[ed] a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements” in the absence of counsel iv. Rule of Law: Statements made by an accused in custody to a covert government informant may not be admitted at trial w/o violating the 6th Amendment right to counsel v. The gov't deliberately elicited incriminating statements 1. The gov't induced a situation in which a defendant would be comfortable in sharing incriminating statement vi. Under the 6th Amendment, interrogation would be creating a situation to elicit an incriminating response while, under Miranda, interrogation is considered direct questioning and subtle compulsion 1. The difference between 6th Amendment and Miranda interrogation is very slight (The difference is just in the timing and stage of the questioning) c. Kuhlmann v. Wilson i. Facts: D was arraigned and in prison for a robbery-murder. Lee, who had agreed to act as a government informant, shared his cell. The police instructed Lee not to question D, but to simply keep his ears open. D told Lee the same story he had told the police — that he witnessed the crime but did not participate in it. After D gave his version of events, Lee said his explanation “didn’t sound too good.” D later told Lee that he and two other men planned and carried out the crimes ii. Issue: Whether the 6th amendment requires suppression of statements made by a prisoner to covert police informant if the information only listened passively and did not attempt to question the prisoner iii. The situation 1. It is post-arraignment 2. A gov't informant is sent to listen and not ask questions 3. Informant befriends the defendant and lends an ear to his story iv. The court held that the government did not deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the defendant 1. Consequently, their admission into evidence did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights v. Rule of Law: The 6th Amendment does not require suppression of statements made by a prisoner to a covert police informant if the informant only listened passively and did not deliberately elicit those statements vi. As long as the gov't agent is sent post-indictment and only listens, then that is okay (D volunteered the information) 1. But, if a situation is created to deliberately elicit incriminating statements, then that is not okay d. Fellers v. US i. Facts: After Fellers was indicted, the police went to his home to arrest him. There, they told him they wanted to discuss his involvement in meth distribution. They informed him they had a warrant for his arrest and the grand jury had indicted him. Fellers admitted that he knew the other people involved and had used meth during his association with them. They took Fellers to jail and for the first time advised him of his Miranda rights. Fellers then reiterated the inculpatory statements he had made earlier ii. iii. Issue: Whether the acts by law enforcements ofÏcers intended to elicit incriminating information after the initiation of formal criminal proceedings violate a defendant's 6th Amendment rights when the defendant is denied the assistance of legal counsel The court held that even though the ofÏcers may not have interrogated the accused, they did deliberately elicit his statements when they came to his home e. Brewer v. Williams (Christian Burial Speech --> Child Abduction) i. Facts: A girl was abducted from a YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa. A witness stated that he had seen Williams carrying a girl’s body out of the YMCA. Williams surrendered to the police and was arraigned in Davenport. His attorney in Davenport instructed the police to refrain from questioning or interrogating Williams until Williams could speak with his attorney in Des Moines. En route to Des Moines, Det. Leaming, who knew that Williams was deeply religious, began making statements commenting on the severe weather, referring to the likelihood that the body of the child would not be found, and suggesting that the child’s parents deserved a decent “Christian burial” for their daughter. The detective ended what is known as the “Christian burial speech” by stating that he felt they should try to find the body on the way to Des Moines, adding that he did not want Williams to answer, he just wanted him to think about it. In response, Williams eventually made some incriminating statements and disclosed the location of the child’s body ii. Issue: Whether the defendant had effectively waived his right to counsel where he continues to invoke his right to remain silent until he has the opportunity to confer w/ his attorney but then makes a statement after being subject to police interrogation iii. The police were asking Brewer a question in the Christian Burial Speech iv. Court held that an effective waiver requires actual relinquishment of a right and where a defendant consistently relies on the advice of counsel in dealing with the police, any suggestion that he waived his right to counsel is refuted 1. The clear rule of Massiah is that once adversarial proceedings begin, the defendant has a right to have counsel present when the government interrogates him v. Dissent: The statement was given voluntarily and he waived his 6th Amendment right when he led the police to the body. The waiver was not given through words, but actions