10 Cited authorities

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,527 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Gideon v. Wainwright
372 U.S. 335 (1963) Cited 8,385 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel in all state felony prosecutions
Kuhlmann v. Wilson
477 U.S. 436 (1986) Cited 1,316 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that no Sixth Amendment violation had occurred where the defendant's statements to the informant were volunteered and the volunteering of the information was precipitated by events beyond the informant's control
Massiah v. United States
377 U.S. 201 (1964) Cited 2,730 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are violated when the government deploys an informant to interrogate the defendant following indictment
Maine v. Moulton
474 U.S. 159 (1985) Cited 1,139 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that state's use of informant to obtain incriminating evidence from defendant about pending charges violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, notwithstanding that state was also investigating other charges as to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached
United States v. Henry
447 U.S. 264 (1980) Cited 878 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Massiah applies in cases involving jailhouse informants
U.S. v. Brink
39 F.3d 419 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 102 times
Holding that the District Court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing where the defendant stated "a colorable claim that the government violated his constitutional right to counsel by placing him in a cell with a known informant who may have been acting as a government agent"
People v. Cardona
41 N.Y.2d 333 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 116 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Cardona, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed a defendant's claim that the trial court had erroneously held, after a suppression hearing, that a fellow inmate's statements were not made in violation of the Massiah rule.
People v. Corse
73 A.D.3d 1208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) Cited 9 times
No. 2008-07864. May 25, 2010. Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honoroff, J.), rendered June 30, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (two counts), attempted criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, hindering prosecution in the third degree, and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict,
People v. Johnson
120 A.D.3d 1154 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) Cited 5 times
2014-09-30 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marcellus JOHNSON, Defendant–Appellant. Cardozo Appeals Clinic, New York (Stanley Neustadter of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Allen J. Vickey of counsel), for respondent. Cardozo Appeals Clinic, New York (Stanley Neustadter of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Allen J. Vickey of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia

The People, Respondent,v.Marcellus Johnson, Appellant.

10 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel in all state felony prosecutions

Holding that no Sixth Amendment violation had occurred where the defendant's statements to the informant were volunteered and the volunteering of the information was precipitated by events beyond the informant's control

Holding that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are violated when the government deploys an informant to interrogate the defendant following indictment

Holding that state's use of informant to obtain incriminating evidence from defendant about pending charges violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, notwithstanding that state was also investigating other charges as to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached

Holding that Massiah applies in cases involving jailhouse informants

Holding that the District Court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing where the defendant stated "a colorable claim that the government violated his constitutional right to counsel by placing him in a cell with a known informant who may have been acting as a government agent"

In Cardona, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed a defendant's claim that the trial court had erroneously held, after a suppression hearing, that a fellow inmate's statements were not made in violation of the Massiah rule.