The Minnesota Lawyer
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case considering whether a cellmate’s statements obtained by an undercover informant after the right to counsel attaches can ever be admissible at trial, for impeachment purposes or other uses.
The case involves the robbery and murder of a Kansas man. Donnie Ray Ventris and his girlfriend allegedly planned to rob an acquaintance they believed had large sums of cash. The man was shot and killed during the robbery, and Ventris and his girlfriend allegedly left with his truck, his cell phone and $300.
They were arrested and charged with robbery and murder, and each claimed the other committed the crime. Police placed Ventris in a cell with another inmate, who was asked to listen for incriminating statements from Ventris and serve as an informant. The cellmate later testified that Ventris said that he and his girlfriend “went to rob somebody and it went sour. "
Ventris sought to exclude the testimony, but the trial judge allowed it after the prosecution said it was offered for impeachment purposes.
The judge instructed the jury to regard the statement with caution. Ventris was convicted of aggravated burglary and robbery, but acquitted of felony murder.
The Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the convictions, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed.
In a 6-1 decision, the court ruled that the right to counsel had attached before the undercover informant was utilized by police to gather incriminating statements from Ventris. Such statements gathered after the right to counsel attached are inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment, the court ruled.
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is expected later this term.