Opinion ID: 1134803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Issue 3: Did Darin Wheeler Seek Incriminating Information From Pirtle After Wheeler Met With Police?

Text: On October 18, 1992, more than five months after Pirtle obtained counsel, police spoke with Darin Wheeler about the Pirtle case while Wheeler served time with Pirtle for unrelated crimes at the Spokane County jail. Three months later, on January 25, 1993, police prepared a report summarizing their interview with Wheeler. This report states: Darin Wheeler took our business cards and indicated that he would like to take care of this as soon as possible. Thus, we should expect to hear from him and/or his attorney very soon. Wheeler was then returned to jail. Westerman Decl., app. F (quoting Report of Jan. 25, 1993 at 1-2). Pirtle claims that sending Wheeler back to the Spokane County jail with a message they would be willing to make a deal in return for information regarding Pirtle essentially invited Wheeler to interrogate Pirtle about the case. Thus, because the police should have known Wheeler would have further access to Pirtle while he was in jail, Pirtle argues police violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel as recognized by Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). The State, however, contends police first approached Wheeler in October 1992, after Wheeler's case had been settled. While police sought information, Wheeler refused to give it and indicated he would like to talk to his attorney about making a deal. Yet, Wheeler apparently never did approach his counsel about working with the police. To the contrary, Wheeler returned to jail to serve his sentence and, following his release, considerable time was required for police to locate Wheeler. Moreover, the information Wheeler testified to at trial was obtained in the early summer of 1992, well before the police contacted him. [7] Pirtle counters by arguing the information testified to by Wheeler was obtained after the October 1992 police interview. To support this claim, Pirtle offers his personal declaration that Wheeler pumped him for information after Wheeler met with the police in October 1992, coupled with Pirtle's attorney's declaration that police records indicate Wheeler had the opportunity in jail to talk to Pirtle after October 1992. In addition, Pirtle argues the three-month delay in filing the police report provides a logical inference ... that the police did not want to document their contact with Wheeler to ensure that Pirtle was not informed that Wheeler was interested in cutting a deal in exchange for testimony. Pirtle Reply Brief at 46. Beyond this claim, no additional evidence is offered to support Pirtle's alleged Massiah violation theory. The allegations and evidence presented are insufficient and, without additional evidence, Pirtle has not substantiated a Massiah violation.