Fellers v. United States
Facts
A grand jury indicted John Fellers for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Officers went to his home to arrest him, entered his living room with permission, told him they had come to discuss his involvement in methamphetamine distribution, informed him of the indictment, and named four individuals involved in the indictment; Fellers then made inculpatory statements. About 15 minutes later, officers took him to jail, advised him for the first time of his Miranda and Patterson rights, obtained a signed waiver, and he repeated and expanded on his incriminating statements. At trial, the jailhouse statements were admitted, and Fellers argued they were fruits of a Sixth Amendment violation at his home.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting Fellers's Sixth Amendment claim on the ground that officers did not interrogate him at home. Whether, after a post-indictment deliberate elicitation of statements outside counsel's presence and without waiver, the admissibility of later jailhouse statements could be analyzed solely under the Fifth Amendment rule of Elstad.
Rule
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches once judicial proceedings have been initiated, including by indictment. After attachment, the government violates the Sixth Amendment when officers deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the accused outside the presence of counsel and without a waiver, and this deliberate-elicitation standard is not the same as the Fifth Amendment custodial-interrogation standard.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Which statement best describes Marcus's strongest constitutional argument regarding the apartment statements?