Lexplug logoLexplug

Kansas v. Ventris

Supreme Court of the United States
556 U.S. 586 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statement deliberately elicited from a defendant by a jailhouse informant, in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, is admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant's inconsistent testimony at trial.


Facts:

  • Rhonda Theel and Donnie Ray Ventris went to the home of Ernest Hicks, possibly with the intent to rob him.
  • During the encounter, one or both of them shot and killed Hicks.
  • Theel and Ventris then fled in Hicks's truck with approximately $300 and his cell phone.
  • After Ventris was arrested and charged, police placed an informant in his holding cell.
  • The informant was instructed to listen for incriminating statements from Ventris.
  • Ventris told the informant that he had shot Hicks in the head and chest and had stolen his keys, wallet, money, and vehicle.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of Kansas charged Donnie Ray Ventris with murder, aggravated robbery, and other crimes in a Kansas state trial court.
  • At trial, Ventris testified and blamed his accomplice, Rhonda Theel, for the robbery and shooting.
  • The prosecution was permitted, over Ventris's objection, to call the jailhouse informant to testify about Ventris's prior confession for the purpose of impeaching Ventris's testimony.
  • The jury acquitted Ventris of felony murder but convicted him on aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery counts.
  • Ventris, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Kansas Supreme Court.
  • The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that statements obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment are not admissible for any reason, including impeachment.
  • The State of Kansas, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Locked

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 a defendant's incriminating statement to a jailhouse informant, obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, admissible at trial to impeach the defendant’s conflicting testimony?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

Yes. A statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is admissible for impeachment purposes. The Sixth Amendment violation under Massiah occurs at the moment of the uncounseled interrogation, not when the statement is introduced at trial. The exclusion of such evidence is a remedy, not a right, and its application depends on a balancing test. The interests served by exclusion—deterring police misconduct—are outweighed by the need to prevent perjury and maintain the integrity of the trial process. Denying the prosecution the ability to use prior inconsistent statements to challenge a defendant's testimony would provide a shield for perjury, a price too high to pay for the marginal deterrent effect that would be gained by extending the exclusionary rule to impeachment.


Dissenting - Justice Stevens

No. A statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment should not be admissible for any reason, including impeachment. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a core constitutional guarantee, not merely a prophylactic rule, and the violation is compounded when the fruits of the illegal interrogation are used against the defendant at trial. Using such ill-gotten evidence damages the adversarial process, which the Sixth Amendment is designed to protect. Permitting the state to use evidence obtained by 'shabby tactics' privileges the prosecution at the expense of the Constitution and undermines the legitimacy of the entire criminal process.



Analysis:

This decision aligns the remedy for Sixth Amendment Massiah violations with the existing impeachment exception for evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda rules. By holding that the violation occurs at the time of the interrogation, not at trial, the Court treats the subsequent use of the statement as a question of remedy rather than a continuing violation. This reinforces the view that the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is deterrence, and its application is limited when this purpose is outweighed by other critical interests, such as preventing perjury. The ruling clarifies that a defendant cannot use a constitutional violation as a license to lie on the stand without facing contradiction.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Kansas v. Ventris (2009) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Kansas v. Ventris