Opinion ID: 565061
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Informant's Testimony

Text: 13 Robinson argues that the court erred in allowing the informant to testify. He contends that his confession was involuntary because he did not know Koppock was an informant. Robinson argues Koppock received a weekly salary from the state patrol to report anything he found out. Robinson also did not have his counsel present when he talked with Koppock. He contends that the right to counsel had attached and he was denied that right when agents of the state deliberately elicited incriminating statements in the absence of his lawyer. He argues that Koppock was not acting as a private citizen because Koppock was still on salary with the state patrol. 14 [A] defendant does not make out a violation of [a sixth amendment] right simply by showing that an informant, either through prior arrangement or voluntarily, reported his incriminating statements to the police. Rather, the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks. 15 Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 459, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 2630, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986). Accordingly, the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accused's right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent. Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 176, 106 S.Ct. 477, 487, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). 16 In this case, Robinson's admissions to Koppock were obtained legitimately and did not violate Robinson's sixth amendment rights. The state patrol had not requested that Koppock attempt to elicit information while in jail. Although Koppock was still on salary with the state patrol, he was in jail for activities unrelated to his informant role and he received no other compensation for the information regarding Robinson. Koppock was not operating at the direction of the state patrol and it did not know about the information Koppock elicited until after Koppock was released. See United States v. Watson, 894 F.2d 1345, 1347-48 (D.C.Cir.1990) (finding informant working for government was entrepreneur while in jail on unrelated charge and his testimony did not violate defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel because he did not act on government's instruction); United States v. Hicks, 798 F.2d 446, 448-49 (11th Cir.1986) (finding informant's testimony did not violate defendant's sixth amendment rights because although informant was working for government at time she was in jail on unrelated charge she was not deliberately planted or instructed to get information), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1035, 107 S.Ct. 886, 93 L.Ed.2d 839 (1987); see also United States v. Surridge, 687 F.2d 250, 255 (8th Cir.) (finding potential informants do not have to be barred from visiting prisoners and an offer to assist police does not violate sixth amendment if police are not directing, controlling, or involved in the questioning), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1044, 103 S.Ct. 465, 74 L.Ed.2d 614 (1982). Koppock's information was obtained purely by happenstance. See Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2630. The state did not know that Koppock would deliberately use his position as a fellow inmate to get incriminating information from Robinson when counsel was not present. See United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 270-71, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 2186-87, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Because the state did not intentionally create a situation likely to induce Robinson to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, it did not violate his sixth amendment right to counsel. Id. at 274, 100 S.Ct. at 2188.