United States v. Henry
Citation and Court
447 U.S. 264 (1980), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Henry was indicted for bank robbery and held in jail pending trial. The FBI contacted a fellow inmate, Nichols, and instructed him to be alert to any statements Henry might make but not to initiate conversations about the crime. Nichols engaged Henry in conversation, obtained incriminating statements, and was paid by the FBI. Henry moved to suppress the statements.
Issue
Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when the government uses a paid informant to deliberately elicit incriminating statements from an indicted defendant held in jail.
Holding
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when the government intentionally creates a situation likely to induce a defendant to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel after indictment, even if the informant is instructed not to question the defendant actively.
Rule / Doctrine
After the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached (upon indictment or the initiation of formal proceedings), the government may not use informants to deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the accused. The critical question is whether the government intentionally created conditions likely to produce incriminating disclosures — active elicitation is not required if circumstances amount to a functional equivalent of interrogation.
Significance
United States v. Henry extended Massiah v. United States (1964) and is the leading case applying the Sixth Amendment’s deliberate-elicitation standard in the jailhouse-informant context. It is read alongside Kuhlmann v. Wilson (1986), which held that a “passive” listener who does not deliberately elicit statements does not violate Massiah, drawing the line between permissible and impermissible informant use.