Massiah v. United States

• Author: Jeffrey Lehman, Shirelle Phelps

Page 460

In Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1964), the Supreme Court held that in addition to the RIGHT TO COUNSEL at the trial stage, the SIXTH AMENDMENT also affords a defendant the right to legal counsel in pretrial stages. The Court held that this right attaches once the accused has been indicted and that the accused is protected from deliberate elicitation of information, including face-to-face encounters with police officers and approaches by unknown government informants.

Winston Massiah was a merchant sailor who was arrested, arraigned, and indicted for possession of narcotics and for conspiring to possess narcotics aboard a U.S. vessel and to import, conceal, and facilitate the sale of narcotics. Massiah retained a lawyer, pleaded not guilty, and was released on bail. One of the accused coconspirators, Jesse Colson, also retained a lawyer and pleaded not guilty. A few days later, unbeknownst to Massiah, Colson decided to cooperate with the government. Colson and Massiah met in Colson's automobile where Massiah made several incriminating statements during the course of their conversation. A radio transmitter had been secretly installed under the front seat of Colson's car, and a government agent listened to and recorded the conversation. At trial Massiah's incriminating statements were admitted into evidence, and the jury convicted him of several narcotics offenses.

The Massiah Court held that Massiah's basic protections of the Sixth Amendment were violated when his statements were surreptitiously and "deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel." In essence, the Massiah doctrine activates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel once the criminal suspect reaches the status of accused and restricts the use of covert tactics by the government in obtaining incriminating evidence.

Since announcing the Massiah doctrine, the Supreme Court has attempted to limit its effect by requiring the accused to show that the government participated in active interrogation. The cases that follow Massiah help determine what constitutes active interrogation.

The Supreme Court held that when an inmate working for the government actively prompts an accused to make incriminating statements, this involves active interrogation and is a violation of the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (United States v. Henry, 447 U.S....