Court Opinion

ID: 9427974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:22:28.805945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:10.925289
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
with whom Mr. Justice White joins, dissenting.
In this case the Court, I fear, cuts loose from the moorings of Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964),1 and overlooks or misapplies significant facts to reach a result that is not required by the Sixth Amendment, by established precedent, or by sound policy.
The Court of Appeals resolved this case by a divided vote, with all three judges writing separately. Three of the seven *278judges then on that court dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. And Mu. Justice Powell, in his separate concurring opinion, obviously is less than comfortable, finds the case “close and difficult,” ante, at 277, and writes to assure that his concurring vote preserves his contrary posture when the Court will be confronted with only “the mere presence or incidental conversation of an informant in a jail cell.” Ibid. This division of opinion about this case attests to the importance of correct factual analysis here.
Because I view the principles of Massiah and the facts of this case differently than the Court does, I dissent.
I
Massiah mandates exclusion only if a federal agent “deliberately elicited” statements from the accused in the absence of counsel. 377 U. S., at 206. The word “deliberately” denotes intent. Massiah ties this intent to the act of elicitation, that is, to conduct that draws forth a response. Thus Massiah, by its own terms, covers only action undertaken with the specific intent to evoke an inculpatory disclosure.
Faced with Agent Coughlin’s unequivocal expression of an intent not to elicit statements from respondent Henry, but merely passively to receive them, ante, at 268; App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a, the Court, in its decision to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, has no choice but to depart from the natural meaning of the Massiah formulation. The Court deems it critical that informant Nichols had been a paid informant; that Agent Coughlin was aware that Nichols “had access” to Henry and “would be able to engage him in conversations without arousing Henry’s suspicion”; and that payment to Nichols was on a contingent-fee basis. Ante, at 270. Thus, it is said, even if Coughlin’s “statement is accepted ... he must have known that such propinquity likely would lead to that result” (that is, that Nichols would take “affirmative steps to secure incriminating information”). Ante, at 271. Later, the Court goes even further, characterizing this as a *279case of “intentionally creating a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements.” Ante, at 274. (Emphasis added.) This determination, coupled with the statement that Nichols “prompted” respondent Henry’s remarks, ante, at 273, and see ante, at 271, n. 9, leads the Court to find a Massiah violation.
Thus, while claiming to retain the “deliberately elicited” test, the Court really forges a new test that saps the word “deliberately” of all significance. The Court’s extension of Massiah would cover even a “negligent” triggering of events resulting in reception of disclosures. This approach, in my view, is unsupported and unwise.
A. Authority. The Court’s precedents appear to me to be contrary to this new objective approach. Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315 (1959), whose concurring opinions presaged Massiah, see 377 U. S. at 204, concerned an “all-night inquisition” during which the defendant “repeatedly asked to be allowed to send for his lawyer.” 360 U. S., at 327 (concurring opinion). Obviously, that case involved deliberate efforts to extract information in the absence of counsel. In Massiah itself, the agent engineered a pretrial meeting between the accused and a turncoat codefendant. The agent instructed the latter to talk to the defendant about the crime, see United States v. Massiah, 307 F. 2d 62, 66 (CA2 1962); id., at 72 (dissenting opinion), and he bugged the meeting place so he could listen in.2 United States v. Ash, 413 U. S. 300 (1973), by emphasizing that Massiah involved a “ruse” and that Massiah’s purpose was to neutralize “the overreaching of the prosecution,” id., at 312, reinforced the view that deliberate elicitation entails purposeful police action.
If any question could possibly have remained about the subjective nature of the Massiah inquiry, it was dispelled by *280Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977). There the Court closely examined testimony regarding the agent’s intentions. In the face of vigorous dissents, it found a Sixth Amendment violation only because “[t]here can be no serious doubt. . . that Detective Learning deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information from Williams,” and because in giving his “Christian burial speech,” Learning “purposely sought ... to obtain as much incriminating information as possible.” Id., at 399 (emphasis added). See also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 300, n. 4 (1980) (reaffirming the “deliberately elicited” criterion); Kamisar, Brewer v. Williams, Massiah, and Miranda: What is “Interrogation”? When Does it Matter?, 67 Geo. L. J. 1, 42 (1978) (“The use of the term ‘deliberately elicited’ seems to be quite intentional”).3
The unifying theme of Massiah cases, then, is the presence of deliberate, designed, and purposeful tactics, that is, the agent’s use of an investigatory tool with the specific intent of extracting information in the absence of counsel. Thus, the Court’s “likely to induce” test fundamentally restructures Massiah. Even if the agent engages in no “overreaching,” and believes his actions to be wholly innocent and passive, evidence he comes by must be excluded if a court, with the convenient benefit of 20/20 hindsight, finds it likely that the agent’s actions would induce the statements.
B. Policy. For several reasons, I believe that the Court’s revamping of Massiah abrogates sound judicial policy. First, its test will significantly broaden Sixth Amendment exclusion; yet, as The Chief Justice has stressed before, the “high price society pays for such a drastic remedy” as exclusion of indisputably reliable evidence in criminal trials cannot be denied. See, e. g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 413 (1971) (dissenting opinion). Second, I think the Court’s approach fails to appre-*281date fully and to accommodate adequately the “value” and the “unfortunate necessity of undercover work.” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U. S. 545, 557 (1977). Third, I find it significant that the proffered statements are unquestionably voluntary. See United States v. Washington, 431 U. S. 181, 187 (1977) (“Indeed, far from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable”). Fourth, the Court condemns and punishes police conduct that I do not find culpable. See Wilson v. Henderson, 584 F. 2d 1185, 1191 (CA2 1978), cert. denied, 442 U. S. 945 (1979) (investigating officer’s “directions, ‘Don’t ask questions, just keep your ears open,’ suggest familiarity and attempted compliance with, not circumvention of, the principle of Massiah”). Fifth, at least absent an active, orchestrated ruse, I have great difficulty perceiving how canons of fairness are violated when the Government uses statements flowing from a “wrongdoer’s misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it.” Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 302 (1966).4
Finally, I note the limits, placed in other Sixth Amendment cases, of providing counsel to counterbalance prosecutorial expertise and to aid defendants faced with complex and unfamiliar proceedings. See MR. Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion, post, at 290-298.5 While not out of line with the *282Court’s prior right-to-counsel cases, Massiah certainly is the decision in which Sixth Amendment protections have been extended to their outermost point. I simply do not perceive any good reason to give Massiah the expansion it receives in this case.6
II
In my view, the Court not only missteps in forging a new Massiah test; it proceeds to misapply the very test it has created. The new test requires a showing that the agent cre*283ated a situation “likely to induce” the production of incriminatory remarks, and that the informant in fact “prompted” the defendant. Even accepting the most capacious reading of both this language and the facts, I believe that neither prong of the Court’s test is satisfied.
A. “Likely to Induce.” In holding that Coughlin’s actions were likely to induce Henry’s statements, the Court relies on three facts: a contingent-fee arrangement; Henry’s assumption that Nichols was just a cellmate; and Henry’s incarceration.7
The Court states: “The arrangement between Nichols and the agent was on a contingent-fee basis; Nichols was to be paid only if he produced useful information.” Ante, at 270. The District Court, however, made no such finding, and I am unconvinced that the evidence of record establishes such an understanding.8 In any event, I question whether the existence of a contingent-fee arrangement is at all significant. The reasonable conclusion of an informant like Nichols would be that, whatever the arrangement, he would not be remu*284nerated if he breached his promise; yet the Court asks us to infer that Coughlin’s conversation with Nichols “likely would lead” Nichols to engage in the very conduct which Coughlin told him to avoid. Ante, at 271.
The Court also emphasizes that Henry was “unaware that Nichols was a Government agent.” Ante, at 273. One might properly assign this factor some importance, were it not for Brewer v. Williams. In that case, the Court explicitly held that the fact “[t]hat the incriminating statements were elicited surreptitiously in the Massiah case, and otherwise here, is constitutionally irrelevant.” 430 U. S , at 400. (Emphasis added.) The Court’s teeter-tottering with this factor in Massiah analysis can only induce confusion.
It merits emphasis that the Court’s resurrection of the unawareness factor is indispensable to its holding. For, in Brewer, substantial contact and conversation with a confined defendant preceded delivery of the “Christian burial speech.” Yet the Court clearly deemed the speech critical in finding a Massiah violation; it thus made clear that mere “association” and “general conversation” did not suffice to bring Massiah into play. Since nothing more transpired here, principled application of Brewer mandates reversal of the judgment in this case.
Finally, the Court notes that Henry was incarcerated when he made his statements to Nichols. The Court’s emphasis of the “subtle influences” exerted by custody, however, is itself too subtle for me. This is not a case of a custodial encounter with police, in which the Government’s display of power might overcome the free will of the accused. The relationship here was “social” and relaxed. Henry did not suspect that Nichols was connected with the FBI. Moreover, even assuming that “subtle influences” might encourage a detainee to talk about his crime, there are certainly counterbalances of at least equal weight. Since, in jail, “official surveillance has traditionally been the order of the day,” *285Lanza v. New York, 370 U. S. 139, 143 (1962), and a jailmate has obvious incentives to assist authorities, one may expect a detainee to act with corresponding circumspection. Cf. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S., at 300, n. 4 (“Custody in ... a [Massiah] case is not controlling; indeed, the petitioner in Massiah was not in custody”).
The Court does more than rely on dubious factors in finding that Coughlin’s actions were “likely to induce” Nichols’ successful prompting of Henry; it fails to focus on facts that cut strongly against that conclusion. The Court ignores Coughlin’s specific instruction to Nichols that he was not to question Henry or to initiate conversation with him about the robbery. Nor does it note Nichols’ likely assumption that he would not be remunerated, but reprimanded and possibly penalized, if he violated Coughlin’s orders. In addition, the record shows that Nichols had worked as an FBI informant for four years and that Coughlin and Nichols had worked together for about a year on several matters. It makes sense, given Nichols’ experience and Coughlin’s willingness to renew their working relationship, to conclude that Nichols would follow Coughlin’s instruction. Finally, it is worth noting that Henry was only one of several federal detainees to whom Nichols was to pay attention;9 this is not a case in *286.which officers singled out a specific target. On these facts, I cannot agree that Coughlin “must have known that [it was] likely” that Nichols would seek to elicit information from Henry.
Under the Court’s analysis, it is not enough that Coughlin should have anticipated disobedience by Nichols; it must also be shown that his actions were “likely to induce” Henry to talk. In my view, however, there was little reason to believe that even the most aggressive efforts by Nichols would lead to disclosures by Henry. Nothing in the record suggests that Henry and Nichols knew each other, far less that they had the type of relationship that would lead Henry to discuss freely a crime for which he had not yet been tried. In this respect, the case stands in stark contrast to Massiah, where the informant had collaborated with Massiah in a drug smuggling operation and was a codefendant in the resulting and pending prosecution. Moreover, “[t]here is nothing in the record to suggest that . . . the [defendant] was peculiarly susceptible [to approaches by cellmates or that he] . . . was unusually disoriented or upset.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S., at 302-303. On these facts, it seems to me extremely mlikely that Coughlin’s actions would lead to Henry’s statements.
Even though the test forged by the Court has no precedent, we are not without some assistance in judging its application. Just a few weeks ago, in Rhode Island v. Innis, the Court held that Miranda was implicated only by “words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” *287446 U. S., at 302 (emphasis deleted and added). Here, the Court asks whether agents “creat[ed] a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements.” Ante, at 274. Although the Court in Innis emphasized that the MaSSiah and Miranda rules are distinct, 446 U. S., at 300, n. 4, I have some difficulty in identifying a material difference between these formulations. Since the Court found its test not satisfied in Innis, it should follow that Henry’s statements may be excluded only if there was greater reason in this case than in Innis to expect incriminatory disclosures. The ease for finding that disclosures were “likely,” however, was clearly stronger in Innis. There the defendant had just-been arrested at 4:30 a. m.; he was handcuffed and confined in a “caged wagon”; and the three police officers accompanying him triggered his confession by conversing about the danger that a “little girl” attending a nearby school for the handicapped would “maybe kill herself” upon finding a gun he supposedly had hidden. Id., at 293-295. Against the backdrop of Innis, I cannot fathom how the Court can conclude that Coughlin’s actions rendered Henry’s disclosures “likely.”
B. “Prompting.” All Members of the Court agree that Henry’s statements were properly admitted if Nichols did not “prompt” him. Ante, at 273, and see ante, at 271, n. 9; ante, at 276 (concurring opinion); post, at 302 (dissenting opinion). The record, however, gives no indication that Nichols “stimulated” Henry’s remarks, ante, at 273, with “affirmative steps to secure incriminating information.” Ante, at 271. Certainly the known facts reveal nothing more than “a jailhouse informant who had been instructed to overhear conversations and to engage a criminal defendant in some conversations.” Ante, at 276 (concurring opinion).10 The scant record demonstrates only that Nichols “had ’an opportunity to have some *288conversations with Mr. Henry while he was in the jail.’ ” Ante, at 267. “Henry had engaged [Nichols] in conversation,” “had requested Nichols’ assistance,” and “had talked to Nichols about the bank robbery charges against him.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a. Thus, we know only that Nichols and Henry had conversations, hardly a startling development, given their location in the same cellblock in a city jail. We know nothing about the nature of these conversations, particularly whether Nichols subtly or otherwise focused attention on the bank robberies. Indeed, to the extent the record says anything at all, it supports the inference that it was Henry, not Nichols, who “engaged” the other “in some conversations,” and who was the moving force behind any mention of the crime. I cannot believe that Massiah requires exclusion when a cellmate previously unknown to the defendant and asked only to keep his ears open says: “It’s a nice day,” and the defendant responds: “It would be nicer if I hadn’t robbed that bank.” The Court of Appeals, however, found it necessary to swallow that bitter pill in order to decide this case the way it did, and this Court does not show that anything more transpired.
Conceivably, the amount of information purveyed by Henry to Nichols could support an inference that some fishing for detail occurred. The Court does not invoke this reasoning, however, and even if the record is stretched to produce such a finding, it clearly discloses nothing about the timing of Henry’s disclosures. It may well be that Henry first “let the cat out of the bag,” either by volunteering statements or by inadvertently discussing the crime with someone else within earshot of Nichols. These possibilities are not farfetched. In addition to revealing Coughlin’s instructions, which we may infer were followed, the record specifically indicates that Henry “volunteered” information about the robbery to a cellmate other than Nichols. App. 85. Moreover, the record discloses Henry’s eagerness to make contact with a potential collaborator outside the jail; Nichols, who was soon *289to be released, was a logical choice to serve as a go-between. The Court, however, seems unconcerned that some of Henry’s statements were “spontaneously given.” 590 F. 2d 544, 549 (CA4 1978) (dissenting opinion). It emphasizes that “[i]n Massiah, no inquiry was made as to whether Massiah or his codefendant first raised the subject of the crime under investigation.” Ante, at 271-272. This observation trivializes the central facts of Massiah, in which an agent arranged a bugged meeting between codefendants who shared a natural interest in their pending prosecution, and in which the informant was instructed to, and did, converse about the pair’s misdeeds.
Ill
In sum, I think this is an unfortunate decision, which disregards precedent and stretches to the breaking point a virtually silent record. Whatever the bounds of Massiah, that case does not justify exclusion of the proof challenged here.

 For purposes of this case, I see no need to abandon Massiah v. United States, as Mr. Justice Rehnquist does.

 The planted bug, of course, not only underscored the agent’s deliberate design to obtain incriminating information. By permitting the agent to monitor whether the codefendant informant abided by his agreement, it all but ensured that affirmative elicitation in fact would occur.

 It is noteworthy that the phrase “deliberately elicited” appears at least three times in the Massiah opinion. See 377 U. S., at 204, 206.

 The Court’s “likely to induce” analysis might also be subjected to the following criticism:
“Few, if any, police officers are competent to make the kind of evaluation seemingly contemplated; even a psychiatrist asked to express an expert opinion on these aspects of a suspect in custody would very likely employ extensive questioning and observation to make the judgment now charged to police officers.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 304 (1980) (opinion concurring in judgment).

 Mr. Justice Powell observes, ante, at 276, that “Massiah serves the salutary purpose of preventing police interference with the relationship between a suspect and his counsel once formal proceedings have been *282initiated.” I fail to see any greater “interference” on the facts of this case than in a case where an inmate is permitted to have a conversation with a trusted visitor, but with an electronic listening device in place, a practice MR. Justice Powell finds unobjectionable. Ibid. Indeed, bugging might be said to present an even stronger case for finding “deliberate elicitation.” There is, after all, a likelihood that the inmate will place added confidence in a relative or longtime friend who visits him. Nichols, in contrast, had not known Henry previously. Moreover, with bugging, a defendant cannot know what he is dealing with. He lacks the ability intelligently to gauge the probability that his confidences will be “reported” back to government agents. See Wilson v. Henderson, 584 F. 2d 1185, 1191 (CA2 1978), cert. denied, 442 U. S. 945 (1979).

 Rejection of an objective test in this context is not inconsistent with Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, since “the policies underlying the two constitutional protections [Fifth and Sixth Amendments] are quite distinct.” 446 U. S., at 300, n. 4. Miranda’s “prophylactic rule,” see Michigan v. Payne, 412 U. S. 47, 53 (1973), seeks to protect a suspect’s privilege against self-incrimination from “the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings” when “interrogation” occurs. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 458 (1966). Thus, in Miranda cases, the degree of compulsion is critical. Beyond an objectively defined “pressure point,” statements will be deemed presumedly compelled and therefore properly excluded, absent the countercoercive effect of Miranda warnings. See id., at 467. Massiah, in contrast to Miranda, is not rooted in the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Rather, it is expressly designed to counter “deliberat[e]” interference with an indicted suspect’s right to counsel. By focusing on deliberateness, Massiah imposes the exclusionary sanction on that conduct that is most culpable, most likely to frustrate the purpose of having counsel, and most susceptible to being checked by a deterrent. Cf. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 604 (1975).

 The Court also notes that Henry, being located in the same cellblock as Nichols, was accessible to the informant. It nonetheless totally ignores the fact that the investigating agent had nothing to do with placing Henry and Nichols in the same cellblock. Indeed, the record shows that Coughlin did not confer with Nichols initially with the purpose of obtaining evidence about Henry; rather, the agent’s affidavit indicates that he was unaware that Nichols and Henry were in the same cellblock until Nichols informed him. App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a-58a.

 The record shows that Nichols “had been paid by the FBI for expenses and services in connection with information he had provided on . . . previous occasions,” id,., at 57a, and that “Nichols was paid by the FBI for expenses and services in connection with the [investigation] of Henry.” Id., at 59a. These facts establish at most an amorphous course of dealing, emanating from an unspecified number of previous investigations. They do not show that Nichols previously was paid only when he produced information. There can be no assurance that Nichols would not have been paid had he failed to come up with evidence implicating Henry or other federal defendants. Nor is there anything to indicate that Nichols acted on this assumption.

 The Court’s suggestion to the contrary, see ante, at 271, n. 8, based on three isolated segments of Coughlin’s affidavit, exemplifies its treatment of the record. The relevant portion of Coughlin’s affidavit reads in full: “Nichols advised that he was in the same cellblock as Billy Gale Henry as well as with other prisoners who had Federal charges against them. I recall telling Nichols at this time to be alert to any statements made by these individuals regarding the charges against them. I specifically recall telling Nichols that he was not to question Henry or these individuals about the charges against them, however, if they engaged him in conversation or talked in front of him, he was requested to pay attention to their statements. I recall telling Nichols not to initiate any conversations with Henry regarding the bank robbery charges against Henry, but that if Henry initiated the conversations with Nichols, I requested Nichols to pay *286attention to the information furnished by Henry.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a (emphases added).
Since the affidavit containing this statement was submitted in Henry’s case, it is neither surprising nor significant that it occasionally refers to Henry by name, while not referring specifically to remarks Coughlin might have made about other detainees. The Court’s reading of this passage as establishing that “the agent . . . singled out Henry as the inmate in whom the agent had a special interest” seems to me extraordinary.

 Indeed, here, unlike the scenario sketched by Mr. Justice Powell, there was no instruction “to engage ... in some conversations.” It would seem that, a fortiori, Henry's statements should not be excluded.