A defendant is arrested and charged with robbery. During the booking process, the defendant makes incriminating statements to a fellow inmate, who is secretly acting as a government informant. The informant had been instructed by police to 'listen for anything relevant' but not to ask questions. The defendant was not read his Miranda rights before making these statements. Are the defendant's statements admissible in court?
- AYes, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached.
- BNo, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated once the informant began listening.
- CYes, because the statements were not made during custodial interrogation by law enforcement officers.
- DNo, because the informant was an agent of the state, and the defendant's Miranda rights were violated.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. Yes, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches once adversarial judicial proceedings have begun (e.g., formal charge, indictment, preliminary hearing, arraignment). Robbery is a specific charge, so the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached. Once attached, the government cannot deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the defendant in the absence of counsel. Here, the informant, acting as a government agent, deliberately elicited statements after the right attached. Therefore, the statements are inadmissible.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. This is the correct answer. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon formal charge (robbery). The informant, as a government agent, deliberately elicited statements from the defendant in the absence of counsel, thus violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under *Massiah v. United States*.
- C. Miranda rights (Fifth Amendment) apply to *custodial interrogation* by *known* law enforcement. Here, the issue is the *Sixth Amendment* right to counsel, which applies to *deliberate elicitation* by *any* government agent once adversarial proceedings begin.
- D. This option incorrectly attributes the inadmissibility to a Miranda (Fifth Amendment) violation. The issue is a Sixth Amendment violation, as the informant was a government agent deliberately eliciting statements after attachment of the right to counsel.
Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel (Post-Charge)
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches once adversarial judicial proceedings have begun (e.g., formal charge, indictment) and prohibits the government from deliberately eliciting incriminating statements from a defendant in the absence of counsel.
- Applies post-attachment of adversarial proceedings.
- Prohibits 'deliberate elicitation' by government agents, including informants.
- Offense-specific: applies only to the crime for which the defendant has been charged.
Memory trick: Miranda (5th) is Pre-Charge Silence; Sixth is Post-Charge Lawyer.