Massiah claim in California

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2022In In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 (Neely)—a case decided under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as construed in Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201 (Massiah) and its progeny—our Supreme Court explained that in order to prevail on a Massiah claim based on a violation involving an informant, “the evidence must establish that the informant . . . was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage . . . .” (Neely, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 915 .) The court observ

2022In In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 (Neely)—a case decided under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as construed in Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201 (Massiah) and its progeny—our Supreme Court explained that in order to prevail on a Massiah claim based on a violation involving an informant, “the evidence must establish that the informant . . . was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage . . . .” (Neely, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 915 .) The court observ

2014(United States v. Henry (1980) 447 U.S. 264, 271 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 115, 122 ].) The trial court’s determination on a Massiah issue is essentially factual in nature and entitled to deferential review.

2014(United States v. Henry (1980) 447 U.S. 264, 271 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 115, 122 ].) The trial court’s determination on a Massiah issue is essentially factual in nature and entitled to deferential review.

1998(Cf. Henry, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 274 [100 S.Ct. at pp. 2188-2189]; Moulton, supra, 474 U.S. at p. 176 [ 106 S.Ct. at p. 487 ]; People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1240-1241 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 800 P.2d 1159 ] (Gonzalez).) This court’s decision in In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901, 915 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ] culled from the case law the following requirements for establishing a Massiah claim involving use of a police informant.

1998(Cf. Henry, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 274 [100 S.Ct. at pp. 2188-2189]; Moulton, supra, 474 U.S. at p. 176 [ 106 S.Ct. at p. 487 ]; People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1240-1241 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 800 P.2d 1159 ] (Gonzalez).) This court’s decision in In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901, 915 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ] culled from the case law the following requirements for establishing a Massiah claim involving use of a police informant.

2023(People v. Woods (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 929, 939-941 [no Massiah violation in using informant to elicit incriminating statements at investigatory stage before charges were brought].) Moreover, with respect to his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, it makes no difference that Daniel was in custody on an unrelated probation violation and was represented by counsel in such proceedings.

2022(People v. Woods (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 929, 939-941 [no Massiah violation in using informant to elicit incriminating statements at investigatory stage before charges were brought].) Moreover, with respect to his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, it makes no difference that Daniel was in custody on an unrelated probation violation and was represented by counsel in such proceedings.

2022In In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 (Neely)—a case decided under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as construed in Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201 (Massiah) and its progeny—our Supreme Court explained that in order to prevail on a Massiah claim based on a violation involving an informant, “the evidence must establish that the informant . . . was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage . . . .” (Neely, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 915 .) The court observ

2022In In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 (Neely)—a case decided under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as construed in Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201 (Massiah) and its progeny—our Supreme Court explained that in order to prevail on a Massiah claim based on a violation involving an informant, “the evidence must establish that the informant . . . was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage . . . .” (Neely, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 915 .) The court observ

2018Analysis In Massiah , "the high court held that once a judicial proceeding has been initiated against an accused and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached, any statement the government deliberately elicits from the accused in the absence of counsel is inadmissible at trial against the defendant. ( [ Massiah, supra, 377 U.S.] at pp. 206-207 [ 84 S.Ct. 1199 ] ; In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 , 915 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ].) To prevail on a Massiah claim, a defendant must show that the police and the informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed

2018Analysis In Massiah , "the high court held that once a judicial proceeding has been initiated against an accused and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached, any statement the government deliberately elicits from the accused in the absence of counsel is inadmissible at trial against the defendant. ( [ Massiah, supra, 377 U.S.] at pp. 206-207 [ 84 S.Ct. 1199 ] ; In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 , 915 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ].) To prevail on a Massiah claim, a defendant must show that the police and the informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed

1998(Cf. Henry, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 274 [100 S.Ct. at pp. 2188-2189]; Moulton, supra, 474 U.S. at p. 176 [ 106 S.Ct. at p. 487 ]; People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1240-1241 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 800 P.2d 1159 ] (Gonzalez).) This court’s decision in In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901, 915 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ] culled from the case law the following requirements for establishing a Massiah claim involving use of a police informant.

1998(Cf. Henry, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 274 [100 S.Ct. at pp. 2188-2189]; Moulton, supra, 474 U.S. at p. 176 [ 106 S.Ct. at p. 487 ]; People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1240-1241 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 800 P.2d 1159 ] (Gonzalez).) This court’s decision in In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901, 915 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ] culled from the case law the following requirements for establishing a Massiah claim involving use of a police informant.

2014(United States v. Henry, supra, 447 U.S. at pp. 270-273.) Thus, where a fellow inmate, acting pursuant to a prearrangement with the government, “stimulates” conversation with a defendant relating to the charged offense (id., at p. 273), or actively engages the defendant in such conversation (In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 954 ), the defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel is violated under the Massiah rule.

2014(United States v. Henry, supra, 447 U.S. at pp. 270-273.) Thus, where a fellow inmate, acting pursuant to a prearrangement with the government, “stimulates” conversation with a defendant relating to the charged offense (id., at p. 273), or actively engages the defendant in such conversation (In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 954 ), the defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel is violated under the Massiah rule.

1993(Strickland, v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ]; In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 950 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 269 , 838 P.2d 1222 ].) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 698 ].) Applying this standard, we review petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance based upon trial counsel’s failure to seek suppression of the tape recording of the March 23 van conversation on the ground of Massiah error. 1.

1993(Strickland, v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ]; In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 950 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 269 , 838 P.2d 1222 ].) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 698 ].) Applying this standard, we review petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance based upon trial counsel’s failure to seek suppression of the tape recording of the March 23 van conversation on the ground of Massiah error. 1.

1991(Milton v. Wainwright (1972) 407 U.S. 371, 372 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 1, 3-4 , 92 S.Ct. 2174 ].) In reviewing Massiah error, “We need not determine whether the jury in fact relied on the tainted evidence in reaching a verdict.

1991(Milton v. Wainwright (1972) 407 U.S. 371, 372 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 1, 3-4 , 92 S.Ct. 2174 ].) In reviewing Massiah error, “We need not determine whether the jury in fact relied on the tainted evidence in reaching a verdict.

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2020(See Texas v. Cobb, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 173 .) 6 Because it is clear that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right had not attached when he made the incriminating statements to Smith, it is unnecessary to address, for purposes of defendant’s Massiah claim, whether Smith “(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.” (In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901, 915 .) Whether Smith’s allegedly coercive actions rendered

2014In other words, “the Constitution does not negate society’s interest in the ability of police to talk to witnesses and suspects, even those who have been charged with other offenses.” (Texas v. Cobb (2001) 532 U.S. 162, 171-172 .) The Massiah right does not apply to other offenses even if they are closely related to a charged offense.

2018Analysis In Massiah , "the high court held that once a judicial proceeding has been initiated against an accused and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached, any statement the government deliberately elicits from the accused in the absence of counsel is inadmissible at trial against the defendant. ( [ Massiah, supra, 377 U.S.] at pp. 206-207 [ 84 S.Ct. 1199 ] ; In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 , 915 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ].) To prevail on a Massiah claim, a defendant must show that the police and the informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed

2018Analysis In Massiah , "the high court held that once a judicial proceeding has been initiated against an accused and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached, any statement the government deliberately elicits from the accused in the absence of counsel is inadmissible at trial against the defendant. ( [ Massiah, supra, 377 U.S.] at pp. 206-207 [ 84 S.Ct. 1199 ] ; In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 , 915 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 864 P.2d 474 ].) To prevail on a Massiah claim, a defendant must show that the police and the informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed

2020(People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 527 [no Massiah violation where investigators told wife to 15 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. “intensify her questioning” of defendant about capital crimes while defendant was incarcerated on unrelated charges].)6 Finally, defendant relies on Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 , to argue specifically that concepts of due process and fundamental fairness dictate that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached.

2014The right to counsel recognized in Massiah does not attach until the “ ‘ “initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings--whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 526 .) Since any agreement between Sellers and Detective Alford necessarily happened before defendant’s arraignment, defendant is asking us to find a prospective Massiah violation.

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2013“In Massiah, supra, 377 U.S. 201 , the United States Supreme Court held that once an adversarial criminal proceeding has been initiated against the accused, and the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel has attached, any incriminating statement the government deliberately elicits from the accused in the absence of counsel is inadmissible at trial against the defendant. [Citations.] In order to prevail on a Massiah claim involving use of a government informant, the defendant must demonstrate that both the government and the informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that w

2013“In Massiah, supra, 377 U.S. 201 , the United States Supreme Court held that once an adversarial criminal proceeding has been initiated against the accused, and the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel has attached, any incriminating statement the government deliberately elicits from the accused in the absence of counsel is inadmissible at trial against the defendant. [Citations.] In order to prevail on a Massiah claim involving use of a government informant, the defendant must demonstrate that both the government and the informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that w

1992(People v. Catelli, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 1444 .) The court finally concluded that the Massiah error was harmless on the facts of that case.

1992(People v. Catelli, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 1444 .) The court finally concluded that the Massiah error was harmless on the facts of that case.

2022Based on our review of the record, the trial court did not “backtrack” on its ruling. 48 To prevail, [the defendant] must show ‘“that the informant (1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.”’ [Citations.] ‘Circumstances probative of an agency relationship include the government’s having directed the informant to focus upon a specific person, such as a cellmate, or having instructed the informant as to

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s

2019(Massiah, at pp. 205-206.) To prevail on a Massiah claim, the defendant has the burden of showing the statement was obtained by someone who “‘(1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the 20 expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.’” (People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 67 ; accord, People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 ; see Estelle, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 471 [admission of psychiatrist’s testimony relaying defendant’s s