Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Henry

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentright to counseljailhouse informantdeliberate elicitationSixth Amendmentright to counselMassiah

Facts

After Henry had been indicted, appointed counsel, and jailed pending trial, FBI agents contacted Nichols, a paid informant housed in the same cellblock. The agent told Nichols to be alert to statements by federal prisoners, specifically referenced Henry, and instructed Nichols not to question Henry about the robbery but to listen if Henry talked; Nichols was paid after reporting Henry's statements. Nichols testified at trial that he had conversations with Henry in jail and that Henry described details of the robbery and the evidence connecting him to it. Henry did not know Nichols was acting for the Government.

Issue

Whether the Government violated Henry's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by using an undisclosed paid jailhouse informant to obtain incriminating statements from him after indictment and while in custody, even though the informant was told not to question him directly.

Rule

Under Massiah, the Sixth Amendment is violated when, after indictment, the Government deliberately elicits incriminating statements from an accused in the absence of counsel. Deliberate elicitation is shown where the Government intentionally creates a situation likely to induce the accused to make incriminating statements without counsel, including by using a paid informant who, while posing as a fellow inmate, engages the accused in conversation while the accused is in custody.

🔒

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 Vega was indicted in federal court in Denver for armed warehouse theft and appointed counsel, he was held in the county jail awaiting trial. A federal agent asked Leo Martin, a longtime paid informant housed in the same pod, to keep his ears open for anything Omar said, mentioning Omar by name and promising payment for useful information; Leo then spent several evenings talking with Omar, who eventually described how the theft was carried out.

If the prosecution offers Leo's testimony about Omar's statements at trial, what is the strongest argument that the testimony must be excluded?

Explanation. The majority held that after indictment the government violates the Sixth Amendment when it intentionally creates a situation likely to induce the accused to make incriminating statements without counsel. The key factors are that the informant is acting under instructions as a paid government agent, appears to be merely a fellow inmate, and the accused is in custody and under indictment. Direct questioning is not required.