Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> Kansas Defenders

Public Defense

: Kansas Defenders

Sixth Amendment violation requires suppression of statements

By Randall Hodgkinson

Matt Edge won in State v. Ventris, No. 94,002 (Kan. Feb. 1, 2008), obtaining a new trial in a Montgomery County agg robbery prosecution. The primary issue stemmed from law enforcement officers placing a snitch in a cell with Mr. Ventris who surreptitiously obtained statements all after Mr. Ventris had been charged and appointed counsel. The state conceded that this was a Sixth Amendment violation and that the statements could not be introduced in the case-in-chief, but argued that the statements should be admissible for impeachment. The KSC reviewed SCOTUS law on the remedies to Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations:

Once a criminal prosecution has commenced, the defendant's statements 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. Although trial judges are called upon to determine the admissibility of evidence to effectuate the courts' truth-seeking function, there is nothing in our federal or state constitutions that requires us to make truth-seeking the overriding principle that trumps our constitutionally protected rights. By following the first approach, the Court of Appeals primarily focused on admissibility of rebuttal evidence rather than the impact of such a glaring violation of a constitutional right.

The KSC was careful to distinguish this case from a case where a snitch provides evidence, but has not done so on the state's instruction. Because the statements could not be used f0r any purpose, the KSC reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Full post as published by Kansas Defenders on February 01, 2008 (boomark / email).