Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Kansas v. Ventris

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentImpeachmentSixth Amendment right to counselMassiahjailhouse informantdeliberate elicitationimpeachment

Facts

After Ventris was charged, officers placed an informant in his holding cell and instructed him to listen for incriminating statements. The informant later said Ventris admitted that he had shot the victim and taken his property and vehicle. At trial, Ventris testified that his companion Theel was responsible for the robbery and shooting. The State conceded there was probably a Sixth Amendment violation but offered the informant's testimony solely to impeach Ventris's contradictory testimony, and the trial court admitted it.

Issue

When a defendant's incriminating statement is deliberately elicited by a jailhouse informant in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, may the statement nevertheless be admitted at trial to impeach the defendant's inconsistent testimony?

Rule

A statement deliberately elicited from a charged defendant in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief, but because the Massiah violation occurs at the time of the uncounseled interrogation and not upon later use at trial, the statement may be admitted to impeach the defendant's conflicting trial testimony. The scope of exclusion is determined by balancing the deterrent value of exclusion against the costs of allowing perjury to go unchallenged.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After Omar Bennett was indicted in Ohio for armed burglary, deputies arranged for a paid informant in the county jail to draw him into talking about the charged break-in without counsel present. At trial in Cleveland, Omar testified that he had never entered the house and was in Toledo the entire night.

If the prosecution offers the informant's testimony solely to contradict Omar's trial testimony, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a statement deliberately elicited from a charged defendant in violation of Massiah is inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief, but may be admitted to impeach the defendant's inconsistent trial testimony. The constitutional violation is complete at the time of uncounseled interrogation, so the later trial issue concerns the scope of the exclusionary remedy, not whether a new Sixth Amendment violation occurs through impeachment use.