Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the use in evidence against him of incriminating statements which government agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his retained counsel.”, Held. Massiah v. United States Case Brief - Rule of Law: Suspect is "denied the basic protections of the [Sixth Amendment] guarantee when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he … All Rights Reserved. for the Suspect: Massiah v. United States and Escobedo v. Illinois, 49 MINN. L. REV.

The Court ruled that suspects in crimes have the right to have a lawyer with them while they are being questioned by the police. Petitioner was recorded by a co-conspirator with the aid of the authorities. © 1965 California Law Review, Inc. . 47 Counsel for the Suspect: Massiah v. United States and Escobedo v. Illinois The recent Supreme Court decisions in Massiah and Escobedo expand the constitutional role of legal counsel beyond the traditional functions and duties surround- ing trial type proceedings. IMPLEMENTING MASSIAH a murder investigation, Escobedo had requested permission to consult with his previously-retained attorney throughout his interrogation. Each issue contains articles, book reviews, and essays contributed by non-student authors -- professors and members of the bench and bar -- as well as student notes and comments. .
. It simply held that “the defendant’s own incriminating statements, obtained by federal agents under [these] circumstances . No. it was entirely proper to continue an investigation” of the petitioner.

the operation of the Review. He had pleaded not guilty and had been released on bail. The dissenting justices focused on the fact that the petitioner “was not prevented from consulting with counsel as often as he wished.” It was on a “sterile”, “unsound” “syllogism” to say that “because Massiah had a right to counsel’s aid before and during the trial, his out-of-court conversations and admissions must be excluded if obtained without counsel’s consent or presence.” Discussion. ., could not constitutionally be used by the prosecution as evidence against him at his trial.”, Dissent. students at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). This development is unfortunate given that the Fifth Amendment Miranda right and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel have different foci and serve different purposes. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization helping the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways. 199. The Court did not “question that in this case . 24 (1960); Vorenberg, Police Detention and Interrogation of Uncounselled Suspects: The Supreme Court and the States, 44 B.U.L. Synopsis of Rule of Law.

-- whose members are all students at Boalt Hall -- is fully responsible for Massiah and Escobedo-FACTS AND HOLDINGS In Massiah, the defendant had originally been indicted for violating the Federal narcotics laws. Massiah retained a lawyer and was released on bail.
Unknown to him, the police had succeeded in enlisting the assistance of one of his accomplices. Whether “the petitioner’s . 2d 246, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 1277 (U.S. May 18, 1964). REv. Evidence was exculpatory. Massiah pretrial right to counsel would support such an importation. Login via your Request Permissions. The Review is published six times a year, in January, March, May, July, October, and December. Syllabus. 377 U.S. 201. institution.

The Review is edited and published by JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA. .

Decided May 18, 1964. Another member of the ship’s crew named Colson had also been indicted but on conspiracy charges. “If such a rule is to have any efficacy it must apply to indirect and surreptitious interrogations as well as those conducted in the jailhouse.”, Searches and Seizures of Persons and Things, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. . California Law Review The Supreme Court used the previous Spano rule. This item is part of JSTOR collection He was released on bail as well. Founded in 1912, the California Law Review was the first student law journal published west of Illinois. Similarly, the suspect's lawyer repeatedly attempted to meet with his client. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Brief Fact Summary. In 1958, Winston Massiah was indicted for possession of narcotics aboard a U.S. vessel. in 1926. He had attempted to traffic drugs from South America to the United States. Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) Massiah v. United States. 47 (1964); Rothblatt & Rothblatt, Police Interrogation, The Right to Counsel and to Prompt Arraignment, 27 BROOKLYN L. REv. Published By: California Law Review, Inc. Access everything in the JPASS collection, Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep, Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep.

Argued March 3, 1964. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided in 1964. California Law Review, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation, was established Yes. Closely tied to the University of California, Berkeley, this organization ©2000-2020 ITHAKA. Suspect is “denied the basic protections of the [Sixth Amendment] guarantee when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.”, Issue.