Fellers v. United States
540 U.S. 519 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when government agents deliberately elicit incriminating statements from a defendant after he has been indicted, outside the presence of counsel, and without a valid waiver, regardless of whether the defendant is in custody or subjected to a formal interrogation.
Facts:
- A federal grand jury indicted John J. Fellers for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
- Following the indictment, Police Sergeant Michael Garnett and Deputy Sheriff Jeff Bliemeister went to Fellers' home to arrest him.
- Fellers invited the officers into his living room.
- The officers informed Fellers they had a warrant for his arrest and that he had been indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
- The officers told Fellers that the purpose of their visit was to discuss his involvement in methamphetamine distribution and named four individuals associated with the conspiracy.
- In response, Fellers made inculpatory statements, admitting he knew the four individuals and had used methamphetamine with them.
- The officers then transported Fellers to jail, where they advised him of his Miranda rights for the first time.
- After signing a Miranda waiver at the jail, Fellers reiterated his earlier inculpatory statements and provided more details about the conspiracy.
Procedural Posture:
- John J. Fellers was indicted by a federal grand jury.
- In the U.S. District Court, Fellers moved to suppress statements made at his home and at the jail.
- The District Court suppressed the statements made at Fellers' home but admitted the subsequent jailhouse statements.
- Following a jury trial using the jailhouse statements as evidence, Fellers was convicted of conspiracy.
- Fellers (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing the jailhouse statements were fruit of an illegal questioning.
- The Court of Appeals (appellee: United States) affirmed the conviction, holding that no 'interrogation' occurred at the home and thus the Sixth Amendment was not applicable.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Fellers' petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does it violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel for police officers, after indictment and in the absence of counsel, to deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the defendant at his home, even if the encounter does not qualify as a formal 'interrogation' under the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes. A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when police deliberately elicit incriminating information from him after he has been indicted and in the absence of counsel. The court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the initiation of formal judicial proceedings, such as an indictment. The standard for a violation is the 'deliberate elicitation' standard from Massiah v. United States, which is distinct from and broader than the Fifth Amendment's 'custodial interrogation' standard. The officers' conduct in this case—stating their purpose was to discuss Fellers' involvement in the crime and naming co-conspirators—was a clear attempt to deliberately elicit information. Because this occurred post-indictment and without counsel or a waiver, it violated Fellers' Sixth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals erred by incorrectly applying the narrower Fifth Amendment 'interrogation' analysis to a Sixth Amendment claim and by failing to analyze whether the jailhouse statements were inadmissible fruits of the initial Sixth Amendment violation.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the critical distinction between the Fifth Amendment's 'custodial interrogation' standard and the Sixth Amendment's broader 'deliberate elicitation' standard. It clarifies that once formal proceedings begin, the government cannot take any action designed to provoke incriminating statements from a defendant outside the presence of counsel, even in a non-custodial setting like the defendant's home. The decision reinforces the protections of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution. By remanding the 'fruits' issue, the Court left open the important question of whether the rule from Oregon v. Elstad—which can permit the admission of a warned confession following an unwarned one—applies in the context of a Sixth Amendment violation, setting the stage for future clarification on the scope of the exclusionary rule.
Unlock the full brief for Fellers v. United States