Justices will hear Sixth Amendment undercover informant case (Oct. 1, 2008)

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a prosecutor can use a defendant’s statements made to an undercover informant to refute the defendant’s testimony at trial.

In January 2004, Donnie Ventris and his girlfriend entered the apartment of Ernest Hicks who was subsequently robbed and killed. During his trial, prosecutors relied on the testimony of Ventris former cell mate, Johnnie Doser. The prosecution recruited Doser, who had violated his probation and faced the possibility of having to serve a prison sentence. In return for gathering information from Ventris, the prosecutor agreed to release him from probation.

A jury on the District Court of Montgomery County in Kansas acquitted Ventris of felony murder and theft, but found him guilty of aggravated robbery and aggravated battery.

Ventris appealed claiming that Doser’s testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The state Court of Appeals affirmed the district court decision, but was reversed by the Supreme Court of Kansas in February 2008.



The state’s high court held that “[w]ithout a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel, the admission of the defendant's uncounseled statements to an undercover informant who is secretly acting as a State agent violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.”

On Oct. 1, 2008, the Supreme Court accepted the case for review.

Question presented: Whether prosecutors may use a defendant’s statement - made in the absence of a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel - to impeach a witness, as opposed to during its case-in-chief.