The issue before the Court in Kansas v. Ventris, 129 S.Ct. 1841 (2009) was whether a statement obtained in violation of the accused’s Sixth Amendment rights using an undercover informant can be used for impeachment purposes? The court ruled that for procedural violations of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the government can use the testimony for the purpose of impeachment. The Court further noted that police officers already have a strong incentive to ensure that they and their informants abide by the Constitution, since such statement can be used for all purposes. There would be no further deterrent to forbid impeachment use, since that would usually be ineffective. The defendant would have to testify, and the statement taken would have to have impeachment value. In this case, prior to trial, officers planted an informant in Ventris’s cell, instructing that informant to “keep his ear open and listen” for incriminating statements. After the informant told Ventris that he seemed to have “something more serious weighing in on his mind,” Ventris admitted that he’d shot the victim in the head and chest and took his money and a vehicle. At trial, Ventris took the stand and blamed everything on his co-defendant. The prosecution relied on the informant to impeach Ventris’s testimony, and Ventris objected. The government admitted that they violated Ventris’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, however argued that the statement was admissible to impeach. The trial court agreed and allowed the informant to testify. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, noting that “once a criminal prosecution has commenced, the defendant’s statement made to an undercover informant surreptitiously acting as an agent for the State are not admissible at trial for any reason, including the impeachment of the defendant’s testimony.”
Hi there! Need a lawyer from Japan? Keep confidence and contact with - Bilecki Law Group| Worldwide Criminal Defense Attorney
Related posts:
