Police Interrogation in Absence of Counsel

Question 1

6th Amendment

Answer 1

Rationale is that once an individual is charged, the protections of the 6th amendment (right to counsel in court proceedings, not custodial interrogation (5th)) are essentially designed to ensure some sort of equality between two adversaries. Entitlement that arises when judicial proceedings have been formally initiated.

Question 2

Massiah v. US

Answer 2

M was convicted of drug violations on basis of incriminating statements overheard on listening device by federal agents after indictment. 6th amendment prohibits government interrogation of D after indictment outside presence of counsel.

Question 3

Brewer v. Williams

Answer 3

Right to assistance of counsel can only be waived by the knowing relinquishment of that right. D can only be contacted thru their legal counsel; if police try to talk to them, then D’s statements are inadmissible.

Question 4

McNeil v. Wisconsin

Answer 4

After charged with armed robbery and requesting counsel, M waived his Miranda rights and confessed to committing a murder unrelated to robbery charges. 6th amendment is offense specific, and invocation of such right does not also invoke right to counsel under 5th amendment which is not offense specific. Can question suspect about offenses that he has not been charged with.

Question 5

Kansas v. Ventris

Answer 5

A criminal D in jail awaiting trial confessed to an informant placed in there by the state, but at trial he blamed the crime on another, and the state sought to introduce the testimony of informant to impeach D’s statements. An informant’s testimony, elicited in violation of 6th amendment, is admissible to challenge D’s inconsistent testimony at trial (impeachment)