Sixth Amendment Flashcards
The Massiah Doctrine
Massiah v. United States⇒
Facts⇒
Holding⇒The 6th amendment precludes the government from deliberately eliciting statements from Δ without providing him with the opportunity to consult his attorney. The right attached once he was indicted.
The Massiah Doctrine
Massiah v. United States⇒
- Facts⇒Massiah and Coson were indicted on narcotics offenses. Coson had agreed to cooperate with the government to trap Massiah into making incriminating statements. Using a radio transmitter, Coson had a conversation with Massiah that led him to making incriminating statements.
- Holding⇒The 6th amendment precludes the government from deliberately eliciting statements from Δ without providing him with the opportunity to consult his attorney. The right attached once he was indicted.
Sixth Amendment
Spano v. New york
1. Facts⇒Police obtained a confession form an indicted Δ who had already retained a lawyer. During the interrogation, his requests for his lawyer were ignored.
- Holding⇒The Massiah doctrine is triggered by the “initiation of _____ judicial ______proceedings.”
Sixth Amendment
Spano v. New york
- Facts⇒Police obtained a confession form an indicted Δ who had already retained a lawyer. During the interrogation, his requests for his lawyer were ignored.
- Holding⇒The Massiah doctrine is triggered by the “initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings.”
Sixth Amendment
iiFellers v. United States⇒
1. Facts⇒Officers came to Δ’s home with an arrest warrant and an indictment, and told him they were coming to discuss his possible involvement in meth distribution.
- Holding⇒Officers ______ elicited his statements, and thus implicated his 6th amendment rights.
Sixth Amendment
Fellers v. United States⇒
- Facts⇒Officers came to Δ’s home with an arrest warrant and an indictment, and told him they were coming to discuss his possible involvement in meth distribution.
- Holding⇒Officers deliberately elicited his statements, and thus implicated his 6th amendment rights.
The Massiah doctrine also applies to situations where the law enforcement officer intentionally creates a situation likely to induce Δ to make incriminating statements to an informant.
- United States v. Henry⇒
- Kuhlmann v. Wilson⇒
iv. The Massiah doctrine also applies to situations where the law enforcement officer intentionally creates a situation likely to induce Δ to make incriminating statements to an informant.
1. United States v. Henry⇒Statements were inadmissible where law enforcement agents contacted an informant/cell mate of Δ and told him to be alert for any statements Δ made.
2. Kuhlmann v. Wilson⇒Statements were admissible where the police instructed the cellmate to listen to Δ.
Sixth Amendment
v. Knowing exploitation by law enforcement of an opportunity to confront the accused without assistance of counsel may violate Massiah even when the officers didn’t intentionally create the situation.
- Maine v. Moulton⇒
a. Facts⇒.
b. Holding⇒Inadmissible
Sixth Amendment
v. Knowing exploitation by law enforcement of an opportunity to confront the accused without assistance of counsel may violate Massiah even when the officers didn’t intentionally create the situation.
- Maine v. Moulton⇒
a. Facts⇒Moulton and Colson were indicted and arraigned for theft. While trying to come up with a trial strategy, Moulton proposed killing the witness. Colsone confessed and consented to recording calls from Moulton.
b. Holding⇒Inadmissible
Invoking and Waiving Sixth Amendment Rights
The 6th amendment right to counsel attaches when Δ is formally charged, but it must be invoked in order to be effective.
ii. Iowa v. Tovar’s⇒
iii. Montejo v. Louisiana⇒
1. Holding⇒The Jackson rule, which held….
b. Invoking and Waiving Sixth Amendment Rights
The 6th amendment right to counsel attaches when Δ is formally charged, but it must be invoked in order to be effective.
ii. Iowa v. Tovar’s⇒
iii. Montejo v. Louisiana⇒Δ was unaware that he had been appointed an attorney. Following the 72-hour hearing, he accompanied two officers to search for the murder weapon. At their request he wrote an apology letter to the widow.
1. Holding⇒The Jackson rule, which held that evidence obtained through interrogation after Δ has invoked his right to counsel was inadmissible was overruled. Miranda, Edwards, and Minnick provided enough protection.
Alternative Remedies to the Exclusionary Rule
i. Common law tort claim
ii. § 1983 Claim⇒in order to succeed, must prove that the conduct
Connick v. Thompson⇒
c. Alternative Remedies to the Exclusionary Rule
i. Common law tort claim
ii. § 1983 Claim⇒in order to succeed, must prove that the conduct
1. was committed by a government official acting within the scope of his authority
2. Π was deprived of constitutional or other federal rights
Connick v. Thompson⇒A local DA office is not liable under § 1983 for failing to train prosecutors about their constitutional obligation to disclose materially exculpatory information.
