Fellers, John v. U.S. (01/26/2004)

Questions presented: (1) Did the 8th Circuit err when it concluded that Fellers' 6th Amendment right to counsel under Massiah v. U.S., 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because he was not interrogated by government agents when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent is whether the the government agents deliberately elicited information from him? (2) Should second statements, preceded by Miranda warnings, have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal post-indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court's decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?

BY JULIANA CHAN, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

On Feb. 24, 2000, two policemen arrived at the Lincoln, Neb., house of John Fellers with a warrant for his arrest. They told him that they wanted to discuss his involvement with drug sales and his association with certain individuals. They did not read Fellers his Miranda rights.

The Miranda warning is the commonly recited refrain that begins, "You have the right to remain silent" Since the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, police have been required to read criminal suspects these warnings before they are interrogated. The warnings derive from the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination and the 6th Amendment right to representation by an attorney.

Without a lawyer at his side, Fellers confessed to the officers that he had been using methamphetamine and was associated with the individuals they had named. Later that day, the two officers escorted Fellers to jail, where they officially informed him of his Miranda rights. Fellers waived those rights, and made a second confession to the drug charges.

Prior to trial, the district court dismissed Fellers first confession -- the one made at his house -- because police had not read his Miranda rights. Fellers argued that neither confession should have been admitted because the second confession was wrongfully elicited from the first one. He said that since he wasnt informed of his right to an attorney during the first confession, he didnt know that he shouldnt have waived his Miranda rights before he confessed the second time. Had the rights been read properly during the first confession, he would have known he could have had an attorney present, and thus would not have waived his rights.

The court did not agree with Fellers, and admitted the second confession as evidence. Based on that confession -- the one he made at the jail -- Fellers was convicted and sentenced to more than 12 years in prison for possessing and conspiring to distribute methamphetamine.

An 8th Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed, holding that the trial judge appropriately admitted the second confession into evidence, based on the rationale used in the 1985 Supreme Court opinion in Oregon v Elstad. Michael Elstad said police had violated his 5th Amendment rights, protecting him from incriminating oneself, when he confessed to burglary charges before he was informed of his Miranda rights. Elstad eventually was read his rights at the police station, but he waived them and made a second confession. The Court concluded that after his rights were properly read, this "cured" the 5th Amendment violation and made subsequent confessions admissible as evidence.

But Sean J. Brennan, who represented Fellers in the 8th Circuit, contends that the appeals court was wrong to apply Elstad to Fellers case. He says a man can take back what he says, but he cant take back the fact that he didnt have a lawyer with him. Brennan says this is something the police should have supplied the suspect from the start. Since they didnt, any subsequent decision the suspect makes without an attorney is the fruit of the violation.

In Fellers case, Brennan says the police violated his 6th Amendment right -- the right to an attorney after arrest -- but could not simply undo this violation by reading the rights later.

"You cant say it cures the 6th Amendment violation when youve already violated it," Brennan says.

On March 10, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review of Fellers case and allowed Fellers to have the case heard without costs.

The U.S. Solicitor General argued on behalf of the government that the 6th Amendment was not violated in Fellers case, and that the ruling in Elstad settled the matter.

"This case is not an appropriate vehicle in which to address that question," the government brief urged. "The court of appealsÉdid not explicitly address the implications of Elstad for 6th Amendment claims, and it had no occasion to do so, because it held that the officers questioning at [Fellers] home did not violate the 6th Amendment."

On Jan. 26, 2004, the Court unanimously sided with Fellers, holding that the interaction between police and Fellers violated his 6th Amendment right to counsel.

In a brief opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court said that the 8th Circuit had erred by using a 5th Amendment analysis to arrive at its conclusion that Fellers had knowingly and voluntarily made his statements to police.

The Court remanded the case to the 8th Circuit to decide if the rationale of Elstad applies when a suspect makes incriminating statements after a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel notwithstanding theearlier police questioning of him in violation of 6th Amendment standards.