Opinion ID: 469813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Pelaes's Statement to Lastre-Parrada

Text: 10 At trial, Lastre-Parrada not only testified to his own and Pelaes's involvement in the kidnaping of Luis, but also testified that shortly before the retrial, while they both were incarcerated in the Manhattan Correctional Center (MCC), Pelaes had urged Lastre-Parrada not to give testimony that would incriminate Pelaes but instead to support Pelaes's contention that Luis's father had consented to the taking of Luis as security for the return of the cocaine. Relying on United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980), Pelaes contends that the admission of this statement violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 1203, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964) (accused denied Sixth Amendment protections when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him). See Wilson v. Henderson, 742 F.2d 741, 744-45 (2d Cir.1984), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3499, 87 L.Ed.2d 630 (1985). The district court, after conducting a brief evidentiary hearing, found Henry inapposite because the government had neither sought to have Lastre-Parrada solicit statements from Pelaes nor sought to have Lastre-Parrada placed in proximity to Pelaes in order to gather unsolicited statements. We agree with the district court. 11 In Henry, the defendant was arrested on federal bank robbery charges and, pending trial, was confined in a city jail where one Nichols, who had been a paid government informant on a contingent fee basis for more than a year, was also incarcerated. Nichols advised an FBI agent that he was housed in the same cellblock with several federal prisoners, including Henry. The agent told Nichols not to initiate any conversation with or question Henry regarding the bank robbery, but to be alert to any statements made by Henry. After Nichols was released from jail, the agent contacted him and learned of several self-incriminating statements made by Henry, which were later used at Henry's trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this combination of circumstances was sufficient to support the view that Nichols had deliberately used his position to secure incriminating statements from Henry when Henry's counsel was not present and that that conduct was attributable to the government. The Court stated that [e]ven if the agent's statement that he did not intend that Nichols would take affirmative steps to secure incriminating information is accepted, he must have known that such propinquity likely would lead to that result. Id. 447 U.S. at 271, 100 S.Ct. at 2187. It concluded that 12 [b]y intentionally creating a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the Government violated Henry's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This is not a case where, in Justice Cardozo's words, the constable ... blundered, ...; rather, it is one where the constable planned an impermissible interference with the right to the assistance of counsel. 13 Id. at 274-75, 100 S.Ct. at 2189 (citation and footnotes omitted). 14 The finding of the trial court that there was no such intentional interference in the present case is not clearly erroneous. Lastre-Parrada testified that about one week after he had been sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment upon his plea of guilty to the kidnaping and conspiracy offenses, he had asked the wife of a fellow inmate to inform his attorney that he was willing to testify for the government. About a month later he was transferred to another prison, where he remained for several weeks, and was then brought back to MCC. It was shortly after his return to MCC that he was importuned by Pelaes to support Pelaes's version of the events. He did not hear from his attorney until after this conversation with Pelaes. 15 Although the record remained unclear as to whether, prior to Pelaes's statement to him, Lastre-Parrada had succeeded in communicating to his attorney or the government his willingness to cooperate, it was clear that the government brought Lastre-Parrada back to the MCC in order to explore with him the possibility of his cooperation. In so doing, however, the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in charge, Michael Kellogg, took certain steps in an attempt to avoid the possibility that Lastre-Parrada would be in proximity to his codefendants who awaited retrial. Kellogg testified that, first, he telephoned MCC and alerted them to the fact that Mr. Lastre would be coming in and that he could not be housed in proximity to or have any contact with the codefendants awaiting retrial. Then he wrote a letter to the person he had spoken with, reiterating these instructions. He then telephoned again to make sure that the letter had been received and that Lastre-Parrada would be housed apart from the other codefendants. He was given assurance that MCC officials understood that Lastre-Parrada should be segregated from the other codefendants. 16 Notwithstanding Kellogg's efforts, MCC officials placed Lastre-Parrada on the same floor on which Pelaes and another codefendant awaiting retrial were housed. Their conversation occurred on the first or second evening that Lastre-Parrada was there. Lastre-Parrada did not confer with the AUSA until the day following this conversation, which was the first that Kellogg knew that his efforts to have Lastre-Parrada segregated from the other codefendants had failed. 17 In the circumstances, we find no error in the district court's ruling that the government did not intentionally create a situation likely to induce Pelaes to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel. The AUSA did all that could reasonably have been expected of him to avoid the creation of such a situation. 18 In ruling that Pelaes's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated in the present case, however, we note that this is not the first incident of its kind, and we caution the government that it is the responsibility of the United States Government, not just of the United States Attorneys, to see that the rights of a defendant are not infringed. In United States v. Cruz, 785 F.2d 399 (2d Cir.1986), we rejected, as we have here, a defendant's claim that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated by the elicitation of statements from him by a cooperating fellow inmate housed on the same floor of MCC as the defendant. See also United States v. Calder, 641 F.2d 76, 78-79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 1984, 68 L.Ed.2d 302 (1981). In Cruz we upheld the district court's 19 express finding that the Government did not deliberately seek to elicit information from Cruz by putting him on the same floor as Tuli in the MCC, however odd a coincidence it seems, especially in view of the fact that Tuli was already a government informant and Mojica turned out subsequently to be willing to cooperate with the Government. 20 785 F.2d at 408 (emphasis in original). Yesterday's odd ... coincidence was repeated here, notwithstanding the exemplary efforts of the AUSA to anticipate and avoid it. We trust that it will not be repeated again. Although the blunder in this case was that of the Bureau of Prisons, which operates MCC, we note that both the United States Attorneys and the Bureau of Prisons are under the aegis of the United States Attorney General, and that such lapses of coordination should be easily avoidable. If they are not avoided, the courts will be justified in viewing with considerable skepticism further accidental placements of cooperating informants near indicted defendants. 21