6th Amend. Right to Counsel/Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel

Question 1

6th amendment, when does it attach

Answer 1

1. a person becomes “the accused” when: formal charges are initiated or the person has been indicted for a crime (Massiah case)
2. the right to counsel is triggered by “the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings –whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment
3. once the right has attached the officer must remirandize them and then see if the suspect waives

Question 2

Waiver

Answer 2

must be voluntary and knowingly, Police cannot deliberately elicit unless D has been remirandized

Question 3

Due process theory

Answer 3

Powell v. Alabama

-the right to be heard would be little avail, if any, without the assistance of counsel

Question 4

6th amendment post invocation

Answer 4

1. no deliberate elicitation-Massiah
2. can interrogate in different case (Texas v. Cobb)
3. Can waive even though you asserted - Montejo
4. Attorney is specific for offense

Question 5

5th amendment post invocation of right to counsel

Answer 5

1. last as long as you are in custody
2. cannot be reapproached and asked about any other cases
   (Shazter -after 14 days not in custody, can be reapproached)
3. is waived if remirandized and D initiates convo

Question 6

Massiah v. United States

Answer 6

Facts: Massiah hired a lawyer, pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, and was released on bail. Without his or his lawyer’s knowledge, colson had agreed to cooperate with government efforts to trap Massiah into making incriminating statements. Colson permitted the govt to install a radio transmitter in his car. Massiah got into the car and after Colson’s initiation of the conversation about the narcotics charges, Massiah made damaging admissions to Colson, which were intercepted by federal agents and recounted at Massiah’s trial.
Held: a criminal defendant’s 6th Amendment right to counsel protects the defendant during post-indictment interactions with government agents. A defendant could not be questioned without the presence of of his lawyer, unless the defendant initiated the conversation. Even if the defendant seemingly waived this right, the waiver would be deemed invalid.

Question 7

Montejo v. Louisiana

Answer 7

Held: a D may waive his 6th amend right without the presence of a lawyer.

after this case: if an out-of-custody defendant merely responds to police-initiated questions, this behavior may be deemed to be a “waiver,” because the defendant was in no way coerced to speak to the police without his lawyer present

Question 8

Spano v. New York

Answer 8

Facts: Police obtained a confession from an indicted defendant who had already retained a lawyer. During interrogation, the defendant had asked for his lawyer, but the police ignored his requests:
Held: the confession was involuntary, based on a number of factors including the denial of counsel.

Question 9

Purpose of the 6th amendment

Answer 9

1. an important purpose of the 6th amendment was to permit defendants the right to retain counsel for trial
2. the right was extended to indigents by means of appointed counsel is relatively uncontroversial
3. extended the right to pretrial events that might appropriately be considered to be parts of the trial itself is also uncontroversial
4. extended the right to police interrogation

Question 10

formal charge

Answer 10

1. the right to counsel is triggered by “the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment
2. by the time a defendant is brought before a judicial officer, is informed of a formally lodged accusation, and has restrictions imposed on his liberty in aid of the prosecution, the State’s relationship with the defendant has become solidly adversarial

Question 11

Deliberate elicitation

Answer 11

and if the defendant is in custody, law enforcement officers may not “deliberately elicit” incriminating statements without first obtaining the defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver

Question 12

United States v. Henry

Answer 12

Facts: Agents contacted the D’s cellmate, who had been indicted on a charge of armed robbery, and told the cellmate to be alert to any statements made by the defendant, but not to initiate any conversation with or question him regarding the robbery. The cellmate reported to the agents and was paid for providing the information.

Held: The govt had deliberately elicited the Ds statements by manipulating the situation. The agents knew he had access to the D and would be able to converse with the D without raising suspicion. The cellmate was not a passive listener but instead had some conversations with the D and the D’s incriminating statements were the product of those conversations.

Question 13

Kuhlmann v. Wilson

Answer 13

Facts: The cellmate at no time asked any questions of the D concerning the pending charges, and that he only listened to the D’s spontaneous and unsolicited statements.
Held: A D’s incriminating statements reported to the police by a cellmate who had been instructed to keep his ears open had not been deliberately elicited within the meaning of Massiah.

Question 14

Maine v. Moulton

Answer 14

Facts: Moulton and Coson were indicted of theft, and assisted by counsel, were arraigned and released on bail. Colson confessed to the police and agreed to record telephone calls from Moulton. He also agreed to wear a body transmitter in order to record in person conversations with Moulton. Moulton made incriminating statements which were introduced at his trial.
Held: The Massiah doctrine was violated when law enforcement used an informant in order to obtain incriminating statements from the D. The 6th amend was violated when the State obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accused’s right to have counsel present in confrontation between the accused and a state agent.

Question 15

Brewer v. Williams

Answer 15

The Massiah doctrine applies when law enforcement themselves question defendants, or deliberately elicit incriminating statements from them, if those Ds are in custody and have clearly asserted their right to counsel

Question 16

Waving 6th Amendment rights

Answer 16

A valid waiver must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent

• in order for the waiver of an in-custody defendant to satisfy the tests of “knowing and intelligent,” it typically is enough for the prosecution to establish that Miranda warnings were given
• once 6th amendment right to counsel attaches, there must be evidence on the record that a D was informed of his 6th amend right to counsel

Question 17

offense-specific

Answer 17

protects communications about the particular crime for which the D was charged and on which the 6ht amend right attached

Question 18

McNeil v. Wisconsin

Answer 18

Facts: 1. Mcneil was arrested for an armed robbery at location A and invoked his right to remain silent. McNeil was represented by an appointed attorney at a bail hearing on the charge. Two days later, officers approached McNeil in order to question him about a robbery at location B and read his Miranda rights. He signed a waiver, agreed to talk, and made incriminating statements.

Held: McNeil’s 6th Amendment right to counsel had attached with regards to the robbery at location A. That right is offense-specific, and as of the time of the incriminating statements it had not attached to the robbery at location B because formal charges were not brought until the following day.

Question 19

Texas v. Cobb

Answer 19

Facts: The defendant was charged with burglary and received appointed counsel. Police also suspected him of having murdered the burglary victims. The police obtained no confession. Months later, the defendant told his father he had committed the murders, and when the father informed police, they arrested defendant and questioned him again. This time, the defendant waived his rights and confessed to the murders

Held: the court reiterated that the 6th amendment right to counsel is offense specific. It cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions, for it does not attach until a prosecution is commenced, or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings. The court clarified that by offense it meant the charged offense plus any other crimes that would be considered the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.

Question 20

Scope of the 6th Amend Exclusionary rule

Answer 20

1. confessions and statements obtained in violation of a Ds 6th amend right to counsel are inadmissible under the Massiah doctrine
2. the rule excludes only those statements relating to an offense for which the adversarial process has been initiated

Question 21

6th amend. fruit of poisonous tree

Answer 21

excludes evidence discovered as a result of 6th amend violations, and the traditional limitations on that doctrine - inevitable discovery, independent source, and attenuation of the taint apply

Question 22

Fellers v. United States

Answer 22

held that Fellers 6th amendment rights were violated when the trial court admitted statements he made to police who came to his home to arrest him and who told him, without giving him Miranda rights, that they were there to discuss his involvement in drug crimes. their conduct constituted deliberate elicitation

Question 23

Kansas v. Ventris

Answer 23

Facts: , Ventris testified that his co-defendant, Theel, was entirely at fault for the alleged robbery and homicide. The government successfully called a jailhouse informant to impeach Ventris. The informant testified, that Ventris admitted both to being the shooter and taking the victim’s money and car.
Held: upheld the impeachment use of the statement, distinguishing the core right to counsel –a right that applies at trial—from prophylactic rights, such as the 6th Amendment right to counsel during interrogations which were created to ensure that police manipulation does not render counsel’s representation “entirely impotent”