Document: 449 U.S. 361 101 S.Ct. 665 66 L.Ed.2d 564 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Hazel MORRISON. No. 79-395. Argued Dec. 10, 1980. Decided Jan. 13, 1981. Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, See 450 960, 1420. Syllabus Federal agents, aware that respondent had been indicted on federal drug charges and retained counsel, met with her without counsel's knowledge or permission, seeking cooperation in a related investigation. The agents disparaged respondent's counsel indicated she would gain various benefits if cooperated face stiff jail term did not, but declined to cooperate notified attorney. visited again the absence of not agree them nor incriminate herself supply any information pertinent case. Subsequently, moved dismiss indictment prejudice ground agents' conduct violated Sixth Amendment right counsel. egregious behavior was described as having "interfered" some unspecified way it alleged claimed violation prejudiced quality effectiveness legal representation adverse impact position. District Court denied motion respondent, pursuant prior agreement Government, entered conditional plea guilty one count indictment. Appeals reversed, holding whether tangible effect upon demonstrated alleged, appropriate remedy dismissal prejudice. Held: Assuming, arguendo, circumstances this case, nevertheless appropriate, absent showing consequence received fairness proceedings leading conviction. Cases involving deprivations are subject general rule remedies should be tailored injury suffered from constitutional unnecessarily infringe competing interests. Absent demonstrable prejudice, substantial threat thereof, Amendment, there is no basis for imposing criminal proceeding, which can go forward full recognition defendant's fair trial, plainly inappropriate, even though may have deliberate. Pp. 364-367. 602 F.2d 529, reversed remanded. Peter Buscemi, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Salvatore J. Cucinotta, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 Hazel Morrison, here, two counts distributing heroin 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). She private represent impending proceedings. Thereafter, Drug Enforcement Agency, sought obtain They conversed permission Furthermore, course conversation, stating think about type could expect $200 retainer paid him suggesting better represented by public defender. In addition, not. Respondent immediately at time them, herself, Contrary advice, continued rely services attorney whom retained. 2 subsequently contained allegation representation; assert induced plead guilty, resulted prosecution stronger case against her, other based solely This interference, unaccompanied effect, urged sufficient requested disposition. 3 indictment.1 On appeal Third Circuit, judgment reversed. appellate court concluded 529 (1979). We granted United States' petition certiorari consider extraordinary relief 448 906, 100 3048, 65 1135. reverse. 4 States initially urges remedied. Because we States, however, error event, shall assume, deciding, 5 provides an accused enjoy "to Assistance Counsel his defense." right, fundamental our system justice meant assure adversary process. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 335, 344, 83 792, 796, 9 799 (1963); Glasser 315 60, 69-70, 75-76, 62 457, 464, 467, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 462-463, 58 1019, 1022, 82 1461 (1938). Our cases accordingly responsive proved claims governmental has rendered assistance defendant ineffective. Moore Illinois, 434 220, 98 54 424 (1977); Geders 425 80, 96 1330, 47 592 (1976); Herring New York, 422 853, 95 2550, 45 593 (1975); Gilbert California, 388 263 87 1951, 18 1178 (1967); Wade, 218, 1926, 1149 Massiah 377 201, 84 1199, 12 246 (1964). 6 At same detracting importance cases, implicitly recognized necessity preserving society's interest administration justice. relevant reflect approach. supra, totally trial. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 158 (1932), judicial action before during trial prevented being fully effective. Black 385 26, 190, 17 26 (1966), O'Brien 386 345, 1158, 94 (1967), law enforcement officers improperly overheard pretrial conversations between lawyer. None these deprivations, Rather, conviction each Government free proceed new Similarly, when after institution proceedings, obtained incriminating characteristically imposed suppress evidence order wrongfully admitted convicted. supra; supra. certain violations disregarded harmless error. Compare 232, 466, Chapman 18, n. 8, 824, 827, 2d 705 (1967). 7 approach thus identify then neutralize taint tailoring effective premise infringement identified threatens produced defense. such 8 More particularly, deliberate.2 result reached where Fifth occurred,3 suggested searches seizures contrary Fourth warrant proceeding limited denying fruits its transgression. Here, kind, either transitory permanent, ability provide adequate There dimension needs purged make effectively unfairly violation, any, justification interfering much less drastic Appeals.4 10 arriving conclusion, do condone agents. Nor suggest this, remedied simply conclude solution provided inappropriate assume occurred, 11 remanded consistent opinion. So ordered. A second dismissed required agreement. conditioned Court's denial dismiss. Circuit approved procedure. Moskow, 588 882 (1978); Zudick, 523 848 (1975). express view propriety pleas. claim here continuing which, because suppression evidence, called more treatment. Cf. Marion, 404 307, 325-326, 92 455, 465-66, 30 468 (1971). Indeed, discernible taint, traditional were beside point. seemed reason fruitful, appropriate. But dissent below indicated, odd reserve most those situations impact. also thought deter deliberate infringements proves too much, dismissal, just knowing violation. note record us does reveal pattern recurring investigative might imposition extreme further lawlessness. clear Blue, 384 251, 255, 1416, 1419, 16 510 (1966): "Even acquire Blue entitled they used . numerous precedents ordering exclusion illegally extend barring altogether. step advance marginally ends served exclusionary rules, increase intolerable degree interference brought book." (Footnote omitted.) position adopted finds support Courts Appeals. Jimenez, 626 39, 41-42 (CA7 1980); Artuso, 618 192, 196-197 (CA2 Glover, 596 857, 861-864 (CA9 1979); Crow Dog, 532 1182, 1196-1197 (CA8 1976); Acosta, 526 670, 674 (CA5 see McCord, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 15-18, 509 334, 348-351 (1974) (en banc) (dicta). Supreme Judicial Massachusetts view. Commonwealth Manning, 373 Mass. 438, 367 N.E.2d 635 (1977).

Category: 0