Criminal Procedure Kansas v. Ventris PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal Procedure 2020 Lecture Notes: Case Brief on Kansas v Ventris...

Description

Criminal Procedure Chapter 23 Case Brief

Kansas v. Ventris United States Supreme Court 129 S. Ct. 1841 (2009) Facts: Ventris was arrested and charged with various crimes including murder and aggravated robbery. While he was in jail, the police planted an informant who coaxed Ventris into making incriminating statements about the crimes. The state concedes that its tactic probably violated Ventris’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, at trial, Ventris testified and blamed the murder and robbery on his partner. The state therefore sought to admit Ventris’ incriminating statements for impeachment purposes only. The trial court allowed the informant to testify. The jury found Ventris guilty of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. The state supreme court reversed the conviction, holding that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights is not admissible for any purpose. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Issue: Are a defendant’s incriminating statements admissible for impeachment purposes if they were elicited in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights? Rule: A defendant’s incriminating statements, elicited in violation of his Sixth Amendment right, are still admissible at trial for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant. Analysis & Holding: Yes. Where a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated, the defendant’s statement can still be admitted into evidence at trial for the purpose of impeachment. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that a person will not be forced to give

evidence against himself and is violated whenever a coerced confession is introduced at trial. Similarly, the constitution is violated whenever a defendant is denied his right to counsel at trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. However, the Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to counsel in certain pre-trial situations. Under this ancillary protection, when police violate a defendant’s pre-trial right to counsel, statements and evidence are excluded only if the deterrent effect on police conduct outweighs the cost to society. In this case, Ventris’ right to counsel was violated when he spoke with the informant. The need to prevent perjury and ensure the integrity of the trail are outweighed by his interests protected by excluding the evidence. Furthermore, excluding the evidence for the purpose of impeachment has little to no deterrent effect on the police. Police already want to abide by the law so that statements and evidence may be introduced as part of the prosecution’s case-in-chief. Accordingly, the judgment of the state supreme court is reversed and the case is remanded. Dissent (Stevens):! The judgment of the state supreme court should be affirmed. The pretrial right to counsel is just as important as the defendant’s right to counsel at trial. While Ventris was denied his right to counsel when the informant elicited his statements, the use of that evidence at trial compounded the violation. The use of illegally obtained evidence, for any reason, hurts the adversarial process. Ventris’ statements should be excluded. ****Key takeaway from class: Just as statements elicited in violation of D’s Fifth Amendment Miranda rights may be used to impeach the defendant’s trial testimony...