Kansas v. Ventris - 556 U.S. 586, 129 S. Ct. 1841 (2009)

Rule:

The Sixth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The core of this right has historically been, and remains today, the opportunity for a defendant to consult with an attorney and to have him investigate the case and prepare a defense for trial. However, the right extends to having counsel present at various pretrial "critical" interactions between the defendant and the State, including the deliberate elicitation by law enforcement officers (and their agents) of statements pertaining to the charge.

Facts:

Respondent Donnie Ray Ventris and Rhonda Theel were charged with murder and other crimes. Prior to trial, an informant planted in Ventris's cell heard him admit to shooting and robbing the victim, but Ventris testified at trial that Theel committed the crimes. When the State sought to call the informant to testify to his contradictory statement, Ventris objected. The State conceded that Ventris's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had likely been violated, but argued that the statement was admissible for impeachment purposes. The trial court allowed the testimony. The jury convicted Ventris of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. Reversing, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the informant's statements were not admissible for any reason, including impeachment.

Issue:

Was Ventris' statement to the informant, concededly elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment, admissible to impeach his inconsistent testimony at trial?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The U.S. Supreme Court held the interests safeguarded by such exclusion were outweighed by the need to prevent perjury and to assure the integrity of the trial process. The Court had held in every other context that tainted evidence--evidence whose very introduction did not constitute the constitutional violation, but whose obtaining was constitutionally invalid--was admissible for impeachment. Therefore, the Court held that the informant's testimony, concededly elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was admissible to challenge Ventris' inconsistent testimony at trial.