Commonwealth v. Manning

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
367 N.E.2d 635, 373 Mass. 438 (1977)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When government agents deliberately and intentionally interfere with a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a calculated attempt to undermine the attorney-client relationship, dismissal of the indictment with prejudice is an appropriate remedy where the misconduct is so pervasive that a new trial cannot be presumed to be free from taint.

Facts:

Kevin Michael Manning was arrested for allegedly selling cocaine to a Massachusetts State police officer and a federal special agent, Roger Marchand.
Manning retained legal counsel to represent him on the charges.
After counsel was retained, Agent Marchand telephoned Manning at work without his lawyer's knowledge or permission.
During the call, Marchand attempted to persuade Manning to become a government informant.
Marchand made several disparaging remarks about Manning's lawyer and suggested the lawyer's defense tactics would not prevent Manning from going to jail.
Manning informed his lawyer of the conversation.
The following day, in his lawyer's presence, Manning called Marchand's office and spoke with another agent, identified only as "George."
Agent "George" reiterated Marchand's disparaging comments about Manning's counsel and again urged Manning to cooperate with federal agents.

Procedural Posture:

Kevin Michael Manning was charged with drug offenses in a state district court.
Manning filed a motion to dismiss the charges in the District Court based on governmental misconduct, which the prosecution preempted by seeking a direct indictment.
An indictment was returned against Manning in the Superior Court for the same offenses.
Manning filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in Superior Court, which was denied by a judge who found misconduct but deemed it harmless.
Following a jury-waived trial in Superior Court, Manning was convicted on both counts.
Manning (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court (an intermediate appellate court).
The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction but ruled that Manning should be granted a new trial as a remedy for the misconduct.
Manning (applicant/appellant) sought and was granted further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the state's highest court) on the sole issue of the appropriate remedy.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is dismissal of an indictment with prejudice the appropriate remedy when government agents deliberately interfere with a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by disparaging their attorney and attempting to coerce the defendant into becoming an informant?

Opinions:

Majority - Hennessey, C. J.

Yes, dismissal of the indictment is the appropriate remedy under these circumstances. The court found a deliberate and intentional attack by government agents on the attorney-client relationship, which constituted a violation of Manning's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court rejected the application of the harmless error rule, citing Glasser v. United States for the principle that the right to counsel is too fundamental to permit 'nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice.' The agents' misconduct was not a mere 'constable's blunder' but a calculated attempt to coerce the defendant. Because the misconduct was so pervasive as to preclude confidence that a new trial would be free from taint, and because a strong deterrent is necessary for such deliberate constitutional violations, a new trial is an inadequate remedy. The indictment itself was deemed 'inextricably interwoven with the misconduct,' making dismissal the only appropriate course of action.

Analysis:

This decision establishes that the judiciary may impose the severe sanction of dismissing an indictment with prejudice in response to egregious and intentional government misconduct that subverts a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. It moves beyond the typical remedy of a new trial, signaling that the integrity of the judicial process and the need to deter deliberate constitutional violations can outweigh the societal interest in prosecuting a particular case. This precedent empowers courts to use dismissal as a prophylactic measure when government agents intentionally undermine the attorney-client relationship, shifting the remedial focus from merely curing prejudice to the defendant to policing the conduct of the prosecution team.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Manning (1977)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"