Legal Document

377 U.S. 201 84 Supreme Court Reporter 1199 12 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 246 Winston MASSIAH, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 199. Argued March 3, 1964. Decided May 18, Robert Judge Carluccio, New York City, Edmund Atlantic Rosner, of counsel, for petitioner. Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion Court. 1 The petitioner was indicted violating federal narcotics laws. He retained a lawyer, pleaded not guilty, and released on bail. While he free bail agent succeeded by surreptitious means in listening to incriminating statements made him. Evidence these introduced against at his trial over objection. convicted, Appeals affirmed.1 We granted certiorari consider whether, under circumstances here presented, prosecution's use evidence petitioner's own deprived him any right secured Federal Constitution. 374 805, 83 1698, 10 1030. 2 petitioner, merchant seaman, 1958 member crew S. Santa Maria. In April that year customs officials received information going transport quantity aboard ship from South America States. As result this other information, agents searched Maria upon its arrival found afterpeak vessel five packages containing about three half pounds cocaine. They also learned circumstances, relevant, tending connect with arrested, promptly arraigned, subsequently possession vessel.2 July superseding indictment returned, charging man named Colson same substantive offense, separate counts Colson, others having conspired possess vessel, import, conceal, facilitate sale narcotics.3 who had guilty bail, along Colson. 3 A few days later, quite without knowledge, decided cooperate government their continuing investigation nacotics activities which allegedly been engaged. permitted an Murphy install Schmidt radio transmitter front seat Colson's automobile, Murphy, equipped appropriate receiving device, could overhear some distance away conversations carried car. 4 On evening November 19, 1959, held lengthy conversation while sitting parked street. By prearrangement totally unbeknown sat car out sight down street listened entire conversation. several during course At were brought before jury through Murphy's testimony, despite insistent objection defense counsel. convicted related offenses, convictions affirmed Appeals.4 5 argues it error constitutional dimensions permit testify overheard disclosed record. This argument is based two distinct independent grounds. First, we are told equipment violated rights Fourth Amendment, and, consequently, all thereby obtained was, rule Weeks versus States, 232 383, 34 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, inadmissible trial. Secondly, said Fifth Sixth Amendment deliberately elicited after absence Because way dispose case, do reach issue. 6 Spano York, 360 315, 79 1202, 1265, reversed state criminal conviction because confession wrongly admitted into defendant case already first-degree murder time confessed. defendant's stand Fourteenth Amendment. Court's relied totality obtained, four concurring Justices pointed Constitution required reversal sole specific ground police indicted, therefore when clearly entitled lawyer's help. It our system justice most elemental concepts due process law contemplate be followed trial, 'in orderly courtroom, presided judge, open public, protected procedural safeguards law.' U.S., 327, 1209, 1265 (STEWART, J., concurring). guarantees aid counsel such surely vouchsafe no less interrogation completely extrajudicial proceeding. Anything less, said, might deny 'effective representation only stage legal advice would help him.' 326, S.Ct., (DOUGLAS, 7 Ever since decision courts have unequivocally rule. 'Any secret defendant, finding indictment, protection afforded presence contravenes basic dictates fairness conduct causes fundamental persons charged crime.' People Waterman, 9 N.Y.2d 561, 565, 216 N.Y.S.2d 70, 75, 175 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 445, 448.5 8 view more than reflects principle established as long ago Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 158, where noted '* * perhaps critical period proceedings say, arraignment until beginning consultation, thorough-going preparation (are) vitally important, defendants much (of counsel) itself.' Id., 57, 59, 158. And has broadly reaffirmed Hamilton 368 52, 82 157, 114; White Maryland, 373 1050, 193. See Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 792, 799. Here deal court conviction, but guarantee directly applies.6 Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 1019, 1461. hold denied protections there used words, true interrogated station, damaging testimony knowledge But, Hays dissent Appeals, 'if efficacy must apply indirect interrogations well those conducted jailhouse. Massiah seriously imposed did even know agent.' 307 72—73. Solicitor General, brief oral argument, strenuously contended enforcement right, if indeed duty, continue alleged assocites though indicted. points Government order uncover source Maria, intended buyer. says involved suggest part large well-organized ring, confirmed suspicion, resulted charges many defendants. Under General concludes 'justified making cooperation normal associations surveilling them.' 11 may accept least present purposes, approve implies, problems one side. question cases, entirely proper suspected confederates, All statements, disclosed, constitutionally prosecution Reversed. 13 WHITE, whom CLARK HARLAN join, dissenting. 14 current incidence serious violations represents appalling waste potentially happy useful lives engage overhanging, dangerous threat unidentified innocent people will victims crime today tomorrow. festering problem adequate cures yet devised. very room discontent remedial measures so far undertaken. admittedly remains settled concerning disposition violate law. 15 But dissatisfaction preventive programs aimed eliminating profound dispute whether should punish, deter, rehabilitate or cure cannot excuse concealing manacing millennium arrived. my view, civilized society maintain capacity discover transgressions identify flout it. necessary scope problem, formulate intelligent counter-measures. just sweep disagreeable matters rug pretend they all. 16 rather portentous occasion barring reliable highly probative issue it—whether accused committed act charged. Without evidence, quest truth impeded cases court, although aware proof showing guilt, nevertheless release crucial deemed inadmissible. justified exclusion serves policies overriding importance, seized illegal search excluded, quality proof, secure meaningful 652; Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081. emphasizes soundest reasons warrant otherwise admissible creation another area privileged testimony. With deference, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions am convinced additional barriers pursuit erects rest anything like solid foundations decisions gravity require. 17 importance matter underestimated, today's promises wide application beyond facts case. reason given here—the admissions counsel—would seem equally pertinent attaches, not; prior arraignment, asks it; fruits improperly new rule; courts; including admissions. immediately service great cases. 18 Whatever content prove be, unable see how presents unconstitutional interference Massiah's prevented consulting often wished. No meetings disturbed spied upon. Preparation obstructed. sterile syllogism unsound one, besides—to say counsel's out-of-court excluded consent presence. never meant before, Cicenia LaGay, 357 504, 78 1297, 1523; Crooker California, 433, 1287, 1448, extension requires further explanation, unarticulated 19 Since exclude police, voluntary reliable, requirement approval probability foreclose nothing thinly disguised policy minimizing prohibiting confessions accused. Carried blind logic compel go, notion mouth severe unfortunate impact bulk 20 Viewed light, newly fashioned exclusionary goes privilege self-incrimination, neither nor suggests pretrial states person 'shall compelled witness himself *.' thus wishes. Likewise coerced saying trial; wished to, did, Whether self-incrimination process, proscription compulsion—coerced incrimination. law, announced countless Court, voluntarily made; product will. Hardly carefully patrolled now expressly rejected deem d involuntary outside supra; supra.* 21 facts, objective scrapping voluntary-involuntary test admissibility area. retain form. 22 analogized American Bar Association's forbidding attorney talk opposing party litigant Aside fact canons dimensions, canon argued inapposite deals lawyers investigators. Lawyers forbidden interview supposed imbalance skill acumen between lawyer litigant; does non-lawyers certainly codefendant. 23 Applying peculiarly inappropriate question, custody questioned what anyone call atmosphere official coercion. What partner There suggestion possibility report police. Had arrangements simply gone occurred, relating readily recording event, risked talking friend disclose knew activities. if, occurred here, cooperating meeting Massiah, both recorded somehow transformed hazard precisely same—the defection confederate crime. 24 Reporting behavior expected demanded ordinary citizen. Friends subpoenaed friends, relatives partners partners. soundness insulating apostasy furnishing constiutional sanction strict secrecy discipline organizations. Neither citizen confessed discouraged reporting knows authorities lending Certainly Colsons between; Massiahs can breathe easily, furnishes important measure faithless compatriots sporting treatment peddlers narcotics. 25 Meanwhile, course, public again loser presented dilemma. general lurking background legitima y penetrating obtaining confederates For agency, answer being form prediction future doctrine. More narrowly, posed precise situation this: arrested ring member, confederate, allowed association withdrawn avoid challenge acquired arrest, indictment? 26 Defendants known illicit operations. Rogers 325 485 (C.A.10th Cir.). That advising them immunize furtherance operations relevant guilt pending prosecution. Aiken tried persuade Agent go business decision, seize introduction whose location known. 27 Undoubtedly, available kind enforcement? thing establish procedures fraught potentiality coercion outlaw 'easy self-defeating ways brutality substituted brains instrument detection.' McNabb 318 332, 344, 63 608, 615, 87 819. substitution brains, inherent danger justifying prophylatic effect surrounded numerous officers relays, access others. Law elements contest it, game. McGuire 273 95, 99, 47 259, 260, 71 556. receive ample line precedents holding unless voluntary. determinations factors voluntariness judged. House Mayo, 324 42, 45—46, 65 517, 519—520, 89 739; Payne Arkansas, 356 560, 567, 844, 849—850, 975; supra, 509, 1300. wiser automatic juries disregard find best possible discharging responsibility ascertaining truth. 62. Code KF62 § 184a. §§ 173, 174. second returned 1961, included conspiracy count, judge dissenting, counts, Davis, 690, 241 172, 191 674 (1963); Rodriguez, 279, 229 353, 183 651 (1962); Meyer, 162, 227 427, 182 103 Di Biasi, 544, 200 21, 166 825 (1960); Swanson, A.D.2d 832, 237 400 (2d Dept. 1963); Price, 739, 235 390 (3d 1962); Wallace, 981, 234 579 Karmel, 659, 230 413 Robinson, 184, 224 705 (4th 1962). 'In prosecutions, shall enjoy Assistance Counsel defence.' Today's picks up ends bars wholly assume, sure, similar supplemental role connection incrimination, unreasonable searches. argued, fruitlessly hope, stay house once attached products reasonable pursuant properly issued accused's

Classification Label: 0