United States v. Morrison
449 U.S. 361 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The dismissal of a criminal indictment is an inappropriate remedy for a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel where the defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice to their defense or any adverse impact on the criminal proceedings.
Facts:
- Hazel Morrison was indicted on two counts of distributing heroin.
- Morrison retained private counsel to represent her in the criminal proceedings.
- Two DEA agents, aware that Morrison was indicted and had counsel, met with her without her attorney's knowledge or permission.
- During the meeting, the agents disparaged Morrison's retained counsel, suggesting he was inadequate and that she would be better represented by a public defender.
- The agents offered Morrison benefits for her cooperation in a related investigation and threatened a stiff jail term if she did not cooperate.
- Morrison declined to cooperate, did not incriminate herself, and supplied no information pertinent to her case.
- Morrison immediately notified her attorney of the agents' visit.
- Despite the agents' actions, Morrison continued to be represented by the same attorney she had originally retained.
Procedural Posture:
- Hazel Morrison moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice in the U.S. District Court, alleging the agents' conduct violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- Morrison's motion did not allege that the violation had prejudiced the quality of her legal representation or adversely impacted her case.
- The District Court denied the motion to dismiss.
- Pursuant to an agreement, Morrison entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion.
- Morrison, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, finding a Sixth Amendment violation, reversed the District Court's judgment and ordered the indictment dismissed with prejudice.
- The United States, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 the dismissal of a criminal indictment with prejudice constitute an appropriate remedy for a Sixth Amendment right to counsel violation when the defendant has demonstrated no prejudice to her ability to receive a fair trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. Dismissal of an indictment is not an appropriate remedy for a Sixth Amendment violation absent any showing that the misconduct prejudiced the defense. The Court reasoned that remedies for constitutional violations should be tailored to the specific injury suffered and should not unnecessarily interfere with society's interest in the administration of criminal justice. Citing precedents like Massiah v. United States and Gilbert v. California, the Court noted that the typical remedy for a Sixth Amendment violation that yields incriminating evidence is suppression of that evidence, not dismissal of the indictment. The fundamental purpose of the right to counsel is to ensure a fair trial, and the premise of providing a remedy is that the violation had, or threatened to have, an adverse effect on the defense. Where, as here, the defendant demonstrated no prejudice of any kind—no impact on her counsel's effectiveness, no incrimination, and no other unfairness in the proceedings—there is no constitutional harm to purge. Therefore, the drastic remedy of dismissing the indictment is plainly inappropriate, even if the government's violation was deliberate.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear prejudice requirement for the dismissal of an indictment based on a Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel violation. It solidifies the principle that constitutional remedies must be proportional to the harm caused, balancing the defendant's rights against the public's interest in prosecuting crime. The decision prevents defendants from receiving a windfall dismissal for government misconduct that, while improper, did not ultimately affect the fairness or outcome of their case. Consequently, future claims of government interference with the attorney-client relationship will require a specific showing of actual or threatened prejudice to the defense to justify such a severe remedy.
