Opinion ID: 70614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of the letters

Text: 12 During the second trial the prosecutor learned of the letters from a member of Strickland's family. He called Caren in North Carolina, and she read at least one of the letters to him. He then either asked (according to his testimony) or directed (according to her testimony) that she bring the letters to the site of the state trial in Georgia, and she did so. She was paid travel expenses. 13 Strickland contends that use of the letters violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The federal district judge found that the Fourth Amendment issue was not precluded by Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). He considered the issue on its merits and rejected Strickland's contentions. 14 Pretermitting whether Strickland had an expectation of privacy in the letters, they were voluntarily published by Caren. She revealed their contents to family members and voluntarily published to the prosecutor at least one of the letters by reading it to him over the telephone. Her actions to this point were indisputably private, not in any sense state action. Caren testified that the prosecutor threatened that the letters would be seized and she would be arrested if she did not bring them to the trial site in Georgia. He denied threatening her, the court found his testimony credible and hers not credible, and concluded that she had voluntarily brought the letters to the trial. These findings are not plainly erroneous. There was no state seizure and thus no Fourth Amendment violation. 15 Assuming the Fifth Amendment applied to use of the letters, there was no violation since, based on the findings by the district court, they were not seized and production of them was not coerced.