Opinion ID: 494717
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Jailhouse Informant and the Right to Counsel

Text: 26 Petitioner argues that he was denied the right to the assistance of counsel in violation of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), and its progeny, by the admission of incriminating statements made to cellmate Chavers. The record reflects the petitioner was placed in a cell with Chavers on January 29, 1981. Approximately three days later, Chavers contacted Investigator LaTorre and informed LaTorre that he suspected that petitioner was involved with the O'Farrell homicide. LaTorre told Chavers to go back to the cell and keep your ears open. Petitioner was formally charged with the murder on February 3, 1981. According to Chavers, petitioner made several incriminating statements after becoming the subject of official investigation. Petitioner purportedly admitted entering Nancy's house and sexually assaulting her. Chavers was released from custody on February 10, 1981, and received a $200 reward offered by the sheriff's department for supplying the information. 27 Petitioner filed a motion to suppress Chavers's testimony on March 31, 1981. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on April 9, 1981. Investigator LaTorre testified that he never promised that Chavers would receive any money or other consideration in exchange for any information. LaTorre stated that he did, however, assist Chavers in obtaining bail. After hearing LaTorre's testimony and the arguments of counsel, the circuit court found that Chavers did not take actions deliberately designed to elicit incriminating statements and denied the motion to suppress. 28 On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. In the words of that court: 29 there is nothing in the record establishing that the informant Chavers had any prearranged guarantee of money in return for information, and it appears that the two hundred dollars that he did receive from the Marion County Sheriff's Department was drawn from a general reward fund and not given as an inducement to elicit information. 30 Similarly, Investigator LaTorre's advice to the informant Chavers to keep his ears open does not constitute an attempt by the state to deliberately elicit incriminating statements. Without some promise or guarantee of compensation, some overt scheme in which the state took part, or some other evidence of prearrangement aimed at discovering incriminating information we are unwilling to elevate the state's actions in this case to an agency relationship with the informant Chavers. 31 Lightbourne, 438 So.2d at 386. 32 In Massiah, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from deliberately eliciting incriminating information from a defendant in the absence of counsel after a formal charge against the defendant has been filed. Massiah, 377 U.S. at 206, 84 S.Ct. at 1203. Accordingly, law enforcement officers violate an accused's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when, after the right to counsel attaches, they install a radio transmitter in a co-defendant's car and instruct the co-defendant to elicit incriminating statements, Massiah, 377 U.S. at 206, 84 S.Ct. at 1203, isolate the accused, agree not to question him and obtain incriminating statements through an appeal to his religious convictions. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 401, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1240, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977), instruct a paid informant to develop a relationship of trust and confidence with the accused in jail and secure incriminating information by stimulating conversation, United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 274, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 2189, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980), and equip a co-defendant with a body wire transmitter in order to record a scheduled conversation about the co-defendants' pending charges, their proposed alibis, and their plans for eliminating witnesses. Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 490, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). 33 In evaluating the conduct of both Chavers and LaTorre we should keep in mind the duty that is imposed upon all citizens to report criminal activity to the appropriate authorities. This duty to advise the law enforcement officials was an established tenet of Anglo-Saxon law at least as early as the 13th century.  'This deeply rooted social obligation is not diminished when the witness ... is involved in illicit activities himself.... [T]he criminal defendant no less than any other citizen is obliged to assist the authorities.'  Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 243-44 n. 5, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 2132 n. 5, 65 L.Ed.2d 86, 98 n. 5 (1980) (Stevens, J., concurring) (footnote omitted). Courts should be slow to discourage disclosures or to make them useless. Although the Supreme Court, to advance certain constitutional safeguards, has carved out exceptions, to the extent of excluding some disclosures about crime from evidence at trial, we recall that these are, indeed, exceptions and not the rule. Unless evidence of crime is plainly excludable, it can be allowed. The testimony of Chavers is not plainly excludable. 34 In order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment in a jailhouse informant case, the accused must show (1) that a fellow inmate was a government agent; and (2) that the inmate deliberately elicited incriminating statements from the accused. Henry, 477 U.S. at 270, 100 S.Ct. at 2186; see United States v. Taylor, 800 F.2d 1012, 1015 (10th Cir.1986). Regarding the threshold agency inquiry, no bright line test for determining whether an individual is a Government agent for purposes of the Sixth Amendment has emerged. Taylor, 800 F.2d at 1015. Nevertheless, other circuits have observed that the creation of an agency depends upon the existence of an agreement between the state and the informant at the time that the elicitation takes place. See Taylor, 800 F.2d at 1015; Thomas v. Cox, 708 F.2d 132, 136 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 918, 104 S.Ct. 284, 78 L.Ed.2d 262 (1983); United States v. Metcalfe, 698 F.2d 877, 882-83 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 910, 103 S.Ct. 1886, 76 L.Ed.2d 814 (1983); 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). After analyzing the facts and circumstances of this case, the state circuit court and the Florida supreme Court concluded that no agency was created because no agreement had been entered into between LaTorre and Chavers when petitioner made the incriminating remarks. 35 Chavers had no history of acting as a paid informant. Furthermore, the record reflects that LaTorre did not initiate contact with Chavers, solicit Chavers to be a paid informant, encourage the elicitation of incriminating statements, or promise or suggest that Chavers would be compensated or rewarded in the event that Chavers reported incriminating statements to the authorities. LaTorre merely advised Chavers to listen. See Thomas, 708 F.2d at 133. LaTorre's statement that he would assist Chavers in obtaining bail was not made until after petitioner admitted to Chavers's involvement in the O'Farrell homicide, and LaTorre's assistance was not conditioned upon further information being obtained. Chavers was not cognizant of the $200 reward offered by the sheriff's department until his release from custody. 36 We must not confuse speculation about Chavers's motives for assisting the police for evidence that the police promised Chavers consideration for his help or, otherwise, bargained for his active assistance. Chavers's motives alone cannot make him an agent of the police even if the police knew and understood that his motives probably were self-serving and related to getting police cooperation in his own case. After reviewing the record, we find insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254(d) applicable to the state court's assessment of the facts and conclude that there is no basis upon which an agency can be established. 37 Regarding the deliberately elicited inquiry, the Supreme Court has recently stated: 38 the primary concern of the Massiah line of decisions is secret interrogation by investigatory techniques that are the equivalent of direct police interrogation. Since 'the Sixth Amendment is not violated whenever--by luck or happenstance--the State obtains incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached,' [quoting Moulton, 106 S.Ct. at 487 (citation omitted) ] a defendant does not make out a violation of [the right to counsel] 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 he police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks. 39 Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 2630, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986) (emphasis added); see United States v. Hicks, 798 F.2d 446, 449 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 886, 93 L.Ed.2d 839 (1987). When a state trial court has made a factual determination regarding this issue after a hearing on the merits, the trial court's findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254(d). Kuhlmann, 106 S.Ct. at 2630. 40 In this case, the district court applied the presumption of correctness with respect to the state court's findings that Chavers did not stimulate conversation with petitioner. After reviewing the record, the district court found no basis for concluding that Chavers did anything but listen to Petitioner's voluntary comments. Lightbourne v. Wainwright, No. 85-136-Civ-OC-16, slip op. at 9 (M.D.Fla. Aug. 20, 1986). The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are not violated when law enforcement officers, either through luck or happenstance, obtain spontaneous and unsolicited incriminating statements. Kuhlmann, 106 S.Ct. at 2630; see Hicks, 798 F.2d at 449. After a plenary review of the record, we find insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness applicable to the state court determination and conclude that Chavers took no actions to stimulate the incriminating remarks and, more importantly, neither did LaTorre. Accordingly, the district court properly ruled that no agency existed and that petitioner's incriminating statements were not deliberately elicited in violation of Kuhlmann. 9