In Fellers the suspect volunteered incriminatory information at the time of his arrest at his home. He did this after being informed he had already been formally charged, but without the benefit of a Miranda warning. Since implicit questioning equals "interrogation" for Sixth Amendment purposes, the police violated the defendant's right (to a Miranda warning) by advising him of the purpose of their visit and listening to his response. Their conduct so tainted the situation that, despite later providing a Miranda warning and obtaining a valid waiver of the suspect's Fifth Amendment right to counsel, a second incriminatory statement by the defendant might be subject to exclusion because of the earlier Sixth Amendment violation (though the court actually leaves this latter question for decision by the Eighth Circuit). This rationale made complete sense to a unanimous Supreme Court.
But I do not quite so easily comprehend the "deliberate elicitation" doctrine or why the initial police conduct should create an obstacle to admissibility of the later statement. Can anyone help me?
[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 02-07-04 at .]
Take a look at the opinion, that may help. Fellers. As I understand the opinion, the court held the Nebraska officers violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right by deliberately eliciting incriminatory statements from him-- by informing him why they were at his home but not first giving a Miranda warning. When they later obtained a similar "confession" from him (after a Miranda warning and waiver by the defendant of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel), the court says that statement was still probably tainted by the earlier Sixth Amendment violation.
This case does not seem very similar to Massiah to me, but the court says it is. Furthermore, it strongly implies that the same prophylactic advice must accompany a Sixth Amendment waiver as a Fifth Amendment waiver of right to assistance of counsel and that the violation of any constitutional right creates a poisonous tree. Is this the correct interpretation of the opinion?
The Court hasn't ruled on the issue of whether the statement is admissible after the initial 6th Amendment violation. It's amazing to me this issue has never been reviewed before.
No question, the officers erred by not informing the defendant of his 6th Amendment right to counsel. It should have been the first thing out of their mouth since the defendant had already been indicted and charged. If you are asking about specific language needed, I don't know, but there better be a clear communication informing the defendant of his right to assistance of counsel.
I don't know how the Court of Appeals will rule, but I can see both arguments. On the one hand, the same analysis should be used for a 5th Amendment violation and thus in this case, the statements would be admissible because the defendant waived his 6th Amendment right before making the statements a second time. On the other hand, I feel as though a 6th Amendment violation is much more serious regarding admissibility of incriminating statements and I could see a rule prohibiting any statements made after a 6th Amendment violation, even if a suspect voluntarily waived those rights (I sound like a defense attorney ) Only time will tell.
Once again, the question must be asked: Why did the police feel the need to arrest? By making an arrest, officers invoke all sorts of restrictions on their ability to question a defendant and obtain a confession. Noncustodial interrogation is the way to go.
) Only time will tell.
