Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
August 4, 2011
O R D E R
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4055
Argued:
Decided:
August 3, 2011
to
indicted
confidential
but
before
he
informant
was
after
arrested.
Appellant
Because
we
had
been
find
that
we
vacate
and
remand
to
determine
if
the
I.
This
Court.
is
the
second
time
this
case
has
come
before
our
was
J.A. 330-370.
very
damaging
to
Appellant
and
worried
that
her
client,
the
court
proceeded
to
play
the
entire
as
Appellants
complicated
trial
and
counsel
difficult
to
portrayed
the
understand,
and
argument:
importance
these
are
of
the
this
[Appellant]s
in
own
its
words
closing
. . . .
Id. at 20-21.
paper
trail
in
the
case,
the
Government
highlighted
that
Id. at 23.
In
He said it.
Id. at 23.
His words.
Appellant was
found that this admission did not constitute plain error, namely
because we had previously held that the Sixth Amendment right
to
counsel
does
not
attach
even
after
defendant
has
been
his
arraignment.
Williamson
I,
337
Fed.
Appx.
at
291
(citations omitted). 1
Appellant petitioned for certiorari.
conceded that the Sixth Amendment did attach upon the issuance
of the sealed indictment, but maintained that Appellant could
not show the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.
On June 21,
Ct.
3461
Scalia,
(2010).
Justice
Chief
Thomas,
Justice
and
Roberts
Justice
along
Alito
with
dissented
Justice
for
the
J.
dissenting).
The
dissent
in
Nunez
primarily
Id.
at 912.
II.
A.
Since
Appellants
trial
counsel
failed
to
raise
any
The
violated
parties
the
now
Sixth
agree
Amendment
that
introducing
because
the
the
right
recording
to
counsel
Albertys
recording
witness testimony.
the
Sixth
and
the
reliability
of
cooperating
Amendment
violation,
however,
because
this
case
. . .
U.S.
Const.
amend.
V.
This
basic,
[c]ardinal
(quoting
Hawkins,
Pleas
of
the
Crown
595
(8th
ed.
264 (1990).
This right was hard-earned by our forefathers, Quinn v.
United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161-62 (1955), and reflects many
of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations, including
a preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial
system of criminal justice, our sense of fair play, and our
fear that self-incriminating statements will be . . . abuse[d]
and untrustworthy.
52,
also
84
(1964);
see
Winthrow
v.
Williams,
507
U.S.
680
Burr,
all
have
agreed
compulsory
self-incrimination
Hoffa
United
v.
Appellants
States,
statements,
that
is
necessary
some
385
kind
U.S.
elicited
via
element
of
293,
of
compulsion.
303-304
confidential
(1966).
informants,
or
coercion
or
are
not
voluntary.
Illinois
v.
had
been
Id.
at
filed
299.
on
the
In
subject
turn,
of
the
confession
interrogation
obtained
by
U.S. 1, 14-15 (1924) (citing Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532
(1897)).
When a defendant incriminates him or herself outside the
presence of counsel, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments can become
closely intertwined.
incriminating
statement
proximately.
Furthermore,
often
occur
the
remedy
simultaneously
for
improper
or
self-
Maine
v.
relationship
Moulton,
between
the
excluding
incriminating statements.
involved
defendant
informant.
exploitation
by
acknowledged
attorneys
and
the
had
The
State
already
Court
of
an
been
held
to
self-
Moulton also
indicted
that
opportunity
close
eliciting
who
confidential
the
Court
the
and
knowing
confront
the
counsel
as
opportunity.
is
the
intentional
creation
of
such
an
foundation.
In
that
case,
which
involved
Sixth
Fifth,
have
held
that
to
ensure
that
interrogations
render
counsel
effective
entirely
representation
the
police
right
manipulation
impotent--depriving
by
counsel
covers
at
the
the
pretrial
does
not
defendant
only
stage
of
when
And
in
Massiah
itself,
the
Court
pointed
out
that
377 U.S. at
Id. at 204.
had
indicted
deliberately
and
in
(emphasis added).
is
to
have
any
the
elicited
absence
of
from
his
him
after
counsel.
he
had
Id.
at
been
206
it
must
apply
to
indirect
and
This
case
potentially
implicates
Fifth
Amendment
issues,
Appellants
against
Appellant
and
introduced
as
evidence
during
the
of
the
admissibility
of
confession
was
mixed
case
Courts
involves
subsidiary
jurisdiction.
Miller
factual
v.
questions
Fenton,
474
beyond
U.S.
104,
our
112
In
comparable
something
was
voluntary
coercion,
express
or
determined
from
the
constitutional
or
was
implied,
is
totality
the
a
of
contexts,
product
question
all
the
of
of
whether
duress
fact
to
or
be
circumstances.
remand,
the
district
court
should
determine
if
10
the
fil[ing
charges]
on
the
subject
at
299.
Voluntariness,
in
turn,
should
of
the
Perkins, 496
be
assessed
11
the
findings
district
and
court
might
should
consider
make
the
any
following
Towards this
necessary
factors
factual
and
the
of
Albertys
questions
and
demeanor;
and
(4)
the
See id. at
III.
For the reasons stated above, this case is
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
12