SUCCESSFUL MASSIAH / HENRY CASES

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES

Massiah v. United States, 
377 U.S. 201 (1964)

Massiah's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated where, after their indictment, his co-defendant decided to cooperate with the government and allowed government agent to surreptitiously overhear his conversation with Massiah, who did not know co-defendant had turned. Government deliberately elicited the statements from Massiah after his indictment and in the absence of his counsel.

Brewer v. Williams, 
430 U.S. 387 (1977)

Petitioner's right to counsel was violated where legal proceedings had commenced against him, thereby establishing his 6th Amendment right to counsel, before he was transported by police, and prior to leaving for the trip police agreed with petitioner's counsel not to question him during the trip, but, although petitioner expressed no willingness to be interrogated, cop made statement intended to obtain incriminating information, and such information was elicited. [This is the famous "Christian burial" / "Christmas Eve" speech case].

United States v. Henry, 
447 U.S. 264 (1980)

Defendant's statements to paid informant who, while locked in same cellblock as defendant, had been told by government agents to be alert to any statements made by prisoners but not to initiate conversations with or question defendant on charges against him were inadmissible as "deliberately elicited" in violation of Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Estelle v. Smith, 
451 U.S. 454 (1981)

 Where defendant had been indicted and counsel was appointed before he was examined at the jail by a psychiatrist sua sponte appointed to determine competency to stand trial and counsel had not been notified of the hearing, defendant's Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel was violated when state introduced psychiatrist's adverse diagnosis on future dangerousness at penalty phase. The interview was a "critical stage" of the aggregate proceedings.

Maine v. Moulton,
 474 U.S. 159 (1985)

Sixth Amendment violated where government took the opportunity to wire codefendant before he went to a meeting with defendant to plan defense strategy. By concealing fact that codefendant had become an agent of the state, government denied defendant the opportunity to consult with counsel. Court also rejected government's argument that statements should be admissible because they were really obtained through its investigation of other crimes. Court said this only invites phony investigations. The evidence would be admissible in prosecutions for those other crimes (assuming it was gathered prior to 6th Am. attachment), but not for the present charge.

Michigan v. Jackson, 
475 U.S. 625 (1986)

Where police initiate interrogation after a defendant's assertion, at an arraignment or similar proceeding, of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, any waiver of the defendant's right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid.

Satterwhite v. Texas,
486 U.S. 249 (1988)

Ex parte orders and filings concerning State's requests for psychiatric exams of capital murder defendant did not adequately notify defense counsel that psychiatrist would examine defendant to assess future dangerousness, and fact that they were in the court file did not satisfy defendant's right to consult with counsel before being examined. Psychiatrist's testimony on future dangerousness at sentencing proceeding violated Sixth Amendment.

Fellers v. United States,
124 S.Ct. 1019 (2004)

Petitioner's right to counsel was violated where officers deliberately elicited information, post-indictment, from the petitioner at his home, absent counsel or waiver of counsel. The Court reiterated its distinction between the Sixth Amendment deliberate elicitation standard and the Fifth Amendment custodial interrogation standard. The case was reversed and remanded to the Eighth Circuit for a proper determination of whether petitioner’s subsequent jailhouse statements should also be suppressed as fruits of the previous questioning.