Opinion ID: 1253042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Massiah and its Progeny

Text: In Massiah, the petitioner and his co-conspirator were indicted for violating federal narcotics laws. The petitioner, after retaining a lawyer and pleading not guilty, was released on bail along with his co-conspirator. The co-conspirator then, in cooperation with government agents, allowed a radio transmitter to be installed in his car so that conversations between the co-conspirator and the petitioner could be overheard by a government agent. The incriminating statements made by the petitioner to his co-conspirator in the car were used against him at trial. The Massiah Court, after granting certiorari, held that incriminating statements deliberately elicited by government agents from the petitioner, after he had been indicted and in the absence of his attorney, denied the petitioner his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The Court concluded that the petitioner's own incriminating statements under these circumstances could not be used by the prosecution against him at trial. [10] In United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980), while the defendant was incarcerated in jail pending his trial for armed robbery, government agents contacted an informant who was incarcerated in the same cellblock as the defendant, and asked him to be alert of any statements made by the fellow prisoners. The defendant was ultimately convicted on the basis of incriminating statements he had made during conversations with the informant while he was incarcerated. The Henry Court, in its analysis, recognized that: An accused speaking to a known Government agent is typically aware that his statements may be used against him. The adversary positions at that stage are well established; the parties are then `arm'slength' adversaries. When the accused is in the company of a fellow inmate who is acting by prearrangement as a Government agent, the same cannot be said. Conversation stimulated in such circumstances may elicit information that an accused would not intentionally reveal to persons known to be Government agents.... Moreover, the concept of a knowing and voluntary waiver of Sixth Amendment rights does not apply in the context of communications with an undisclosed undercover informant acting for the Government.... Finally, [the defendant's] incarceration at the time he was engaged in conversation by [the informant] is also a relevant factor.... [T]he mere fact of custody imposes pressures on the accused; confinement may bring into play subtle influences that will make him particularly susceptible to the ploys of undercover Government agents. 447 U.S. at 273-74, 100 S.Ct. at 2188, 65 L.Ed.2d at 124. The Court held that by intentionally creating a situation likely to induce the defendant to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Id. Next, in Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), the court was faced with the issue of whether the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel was violated when incriminating statements made by him to his co-defendant, a secret government informant, after indictment and at a meeting between the two to plan their defense for trial, were admitted at trial. The Court, in reaffirming that 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[,] reaffirmed that Massiah states a sensible solution to a difficult problem. Id. at 176, 179, 106 S.Ct. at 487, 489, 88 L.Ed.2d at 496, 498. The court explained: The police have an interest in the thorough investigation of crimes for which formal charges have already been filed. They also have an interest in investigating new or additional crimes. Investigations of either type of crime may require surveillance of individuals already under indictment. Moreover, law enforcement officials investigating an individual suspected of committing one crime and formally charged with having committed another crime obviously seek to discover evidence useful at a trial of either crime. In seeking evidence pertaining to pending charges, however, the Government's investigative powers are limited by the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused. To allow the admission of evidence obtained from the accused in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights whenever the police assert an alternative, legitimate reason for their surveillance invites abuse by law enforcement personnel in the form of fabricated investigations and risks the evisceration of the Sixth Amendment right recognized in Massiah. On the other hand, to exclude evidence pertaining to charges as to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time the evidence was obtained, simply because other charges were pending at that time, would unnecessarily frustrate the public's interest in the investigation of criminal activities. Consequently, incriminating statements pertaining to pending charges are inadmissible at the trial of those charges, notwithstanding the fact that the police were also investigating other crimes, if, in obtaining this evidence, the State violated the Sixth Amendment by knowingly circumventing the accused's right to the assistance of counsel. Id. at 179-80, 106 S.Ct. at 489, 88 L.Ed.2d at 498-99 (footnotes omitted). [11] In Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986), the defendant was incarcerated after his arraignment on charges arising from a robbery and murder, with an inmate who had agreed to work with the police as an informant. The informant was directed by the police not to ask the defendant any questions, and to merely listen to what the defendant may say in his presence. The defendant voluntarily made incriminating statements to the informant, which were reported by the informant to the police. The Kuhlmann court reversed the Court of Appeals' holding that the defendant's right to counsel was violated. The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals' decision was clear error in light of the provisions of 28 U.S.C.§ 2254(d), which requires that the state court's factual findings be accorded the presumption of correctness. [12] Id. at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2630, 91 L.Ed.2d at 385. The court recognized that 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,'... a defendant does not make out a violation of that 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. Id. at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2630, 91 L.Ed.2d at 384-85. (emphasis added and citation omitted). Finally, the Supreme Court has held that the sixth amendment decisions in Massiah, Henry and Moulton do not apply in cases where charges have not been filed against the defendant for the offense which is the subject of the interrogation, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not attached. Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990). In Perkins, police placed an undercover agent in a cell with the defendant who was incarcerated on charges other than the murder the agent was investigating. The court held that the undercover agent posing as a fellow inmate did not need to give Miranda warnings to the incarcerated defendant because the Miranda concerns of a `police-dominated atmosphere' and compulsion are not present when an incarcerated person speaks freely to someone whom he believes to be a fellow inmate. Id. at 296, 110 S.Ct. at 2397, 110 L.Ed.2d at 251. [13] The court further held that the Massiah line of decisions did not apply because the subject of the interrogation was related to a separate offense for which no charges had been filed. We believe that certain factors identified in the Massiah line of decisions should be taken into consideration by circuit courts in determining whether to grant motions to suppress incriminating statements elicited by an undercover informant working for the police from a defendant whose Sixth Amendment right to counsel has already attached. Thus, in considering whether to grant a motion to suppress incriminating statements elicited from a defendant by an undercover agent working for police, the circuit court should consider whether: (1) the police, through the use of an undercover agent, have intentionally created a situation likely to induce the defendant to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel; (2) the incriminating statements relate to an offense for which the defendant has already been indicted or the right to counsel has otherwise attached; (3) the police or prosecuting attorney knowingly circumvented the defendant's right to counsel and deliberately elicited incriminating statements from the defendant; and (4) the defendant has shown that the police and the undercover agent have taken some action, beyond mere listening, that was induced to elicit incriminating statements from the defendant.