Maine v. Moulton

E821209

Maine v. Moulton is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded Sixth Amendment protections by holding that the government violates the right to counsel when it deliberately elicits incriminating statements from an indicted defendant through a cooperating co-defendant acting as an informant.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (46)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Sixth Amendment case
United States Supreme Court case
criminal procedure case
arguedDate 1985-03-27
citation 474 U.S. 159
constitutionalProvision Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
country United States of America
surface form: United States
court Supreme Court of the United States
crimeCharged theft-related offenses
decisionDate 1985-12-10
dissentingJustices Chief Justice Warren E. Burger NERFINISHED
Lewis F. Powell Jr. NERFINISHED
William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED
dissentingOpinionBy Chief Justice Warren E. Burger NERFINISHED
effect Expanded protections for indicted defendants against government use of informants to obtain incriminating statements.
holding The State may not use surreptitious investigatory techniques to circumvent the protections of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel after formal charges have been filed.
The government violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it deliberately elicits incriminating statements from an indicted defendant through a cooperating co-defendant acting as an informant.
jurisdiction United States of America
surface form: United States
language English
legalIssue deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements
right to counsel
use of informants after indictment
majorityJustices Byron R. White NERFINISHED
Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED
William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED
majorityOpinionBy Justice William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED
petitioner State of Maine NERFINISHED
principle Once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached, the government may not knowingly circumvent that right by using an undercover agent to elicit incriminating statements about the charged offense.
The State’s interest in investigating new or additional crimes does not justify knowingly circumventing the accused’s right to counsel regarding pending charges.
proceduralPosture review of a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
relatedCase Brewer v. Williams NERFINISHED
Massiah v. United States NERFINISHED
United States v. Henry NERFINISHED
relatedDoctrine Massiah doctrine NERFINISHED
reporter United States Reports
respondent Richard Moulton NERFINISHED
result Judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed in part and reversed in part
subjectMatter state criminal prosecution
topic criminal investigations
post-indictment interrogation
use of undercover informants
volume 474
year 1985

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Massiah v. United States relatedTo Maine v. Moulton