Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentright to counselpost-indictment interrogationdeliberate elicitationSixth Amendmentright to counselindictment
Facts
After petitioner was indicted on federal narcotics charges, retained counsel, pleaded not guilty, and was released on bail, his codefendant Colson agreed to cooperate with federal agents. With Colson's permission, Agent Murphy installed a radio transmitter under the seat of Colson's car so Murphy could overhear conversations from a distance. During a prearranged meeting in Colson's car, petitioner, unaware of Murphy's presence or the transmitter, made several incriminating statements. At trial, over defense objection, the prosecution introduced those statements through Murphy's testimony.
Issue
Whether the prosecution may constitutionally use at trial incriminating statements that federal agents deliberately elicited from an indicted defendant, in the absence of his retained counsel, by surreptitiously overhearing a conversation with a cooperating codefendant.
Rule
The Sixth Amendment is violated when, after indictment and in the absence of counsel, government agents deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the defendant and the prosecution uses those statements against him at trial. This rule applies not only to direct police questioning but also to indirect and surreptitious interrogation.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Chicago, Omar Vega was indicted in federal court for counterfeiting and retained counsel. After the indictment, his former partner, Lena Ortiz, agreed to work with federal agents and met Omar at a diner while wearing a hidden transmitter; agents listened from a van nearby as Lena steered the conversation toward the fake bills, and Omar made incriminating statements later offered at trial.
Are Omar's statements admissible in the federal prosecution's case-in-chief?
Explanation. The majority held that once a defendant has been indicted, the Sixth Amendment bars the prosecution from using at trial the defendant's own incriminating statements deliberately elicited by government agents in the absence of counsel. The rule is not limited to overt station-house questioning; it also applies to indirect and surreptitious interrogation through a cooperating associate. The fact that Omar was not in custody does not change the result.