Opinion ID: 390520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Obtained from Tape Recordings.

Text: 38 After Holt's preliminary hearing, the prosecution, despite its knowledge that Holt was represented by counsel, contacted Wanda McAllister for the purpose of installing a wiretap on her telephone. Although McAllister didn't want to make the recording, state officials told her to make it or else. The prosecuting attorney told her that he wanted enough on (the recording) to convict (Eugene). Two highway patrolmen installed the wiretap, instructing McAllister not to call Holt, but to have him talk about the case when he called her. 39 After learning of the wiretap, Holt moved to suppress the tape recordings on the ground that they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel as guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth amendments. This motion was denied. The prosecution did not introduce this evidence in the state's case-in-chief. The prosecutor, however, apparently relied on information from the tapes in formulating his cross-examination of Holt. 7 40 Holt argues that the state, in procuring the tape recordings, intentionally (created) a situation likely to induce (him) to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel(.) United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 274, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 2189, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). See also Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). Holt asserts that the state's conduct, in forcing Ms. McAllister to record her conversations with Holt, cannot be distinguished from that in Massiah where a coconspirator's surreptitious recording of conversations with the defendant amounted to unconstitutional interrogation in violation of the sixth amendment. See id. at 202-03, 84 S.Ct. at 1201. 41 Assuming that the prosecutor interfered with Holt's right to counsel, we deem the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The state did not introduce the tapes into evidence. Much of the cross-examination in question related to Holt's relationship with McAllister, a relationship conceded to by the defense. Further, the prosecution presented substantial evidence of Holt's guilt in the state's case-in-chief. 8 As we stated in United States v. Weir, 575 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1978), If, upon the record as a whole, this court is certain that the (use) of the evidence did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect, the verdict should stand. Id. at 671. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the information derived from the tape recordings, at most, slightly affected the outcome of the case. We thus hold that any error resulting from the state's alleged unconstitutional behavior is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 42