Title: State v. Lang

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Lang  (95-477); 167 Vt. 572; 702 A.2d 135 

[Filed 23-Sep-1997]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-477

                              APRIL TERM, 1997

State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont,
                                }     Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
Travis J. Lang                  }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 1053-3-92Cncr

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Travis Lang appeals his conviction for first-degree murder,
  claiming that his taped, pre-information statements to an informant were
  admitted at trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment, the Vermont public
  defender statutes, and Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(1) of the Code of
  Professional Responsibility.  Without these statements, defendant argues,
  the evidence was insufficient to convict him.  We hold that the trial court
  properly admitted the taped statements, and affirm.

       Although the murder occurred in 1988, information connecting defendant
  to the incident surfaced much later.  In April 1991, while defendant was in
  custody for want of bail regarding an unrelated armed robbery case, the
  Chittenden County State's Attorney wrote to defendant's then lawyer, asking
  if defendant would like to cooperate with the prosecution concerning "a
  most serious crime [that] took place in the county some time ago." 
  Defendant's counsel wrote back, indicated a willingness to cooperate, but
  the state's attorney abandoned the inquiry without responding.

       In February 1992, an informant offered to provide the State
  information about the murder in return for leniency concerning gambling
  charges.  The police asked the informant to discuss the murder with
  defendant and obtained a warrant to provide the informant with an
  electronic surveillance device so they could record and listen to
  conversations.  During the recorded conversation with the informant,
  defendant made a number of incriminating statements pointing to his
  involvement in the homicide.  Based on this evidence, the state's attorney
  filed an information charging defendant with first-degree murder.

       Defendant contends that his recorded statements were taken in
  violation of the right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment to the
  United States Constitution.  His argument is that he was represented by
  counsel, and any interrogation should have occurred only in the presence of
  counsel.  Although the Sixth Amendment prohibits the State from
  interrogating a criminal defendant outside the presence of counsel, it
  applies only when "judicial proceedings have been initiated."  Brewer v.
  Williams,