James Thomas Cahill v. Ruth Rushen, Director, California Department of Corrections

678 F.2d 791 James Thomas CAHILL, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Ruth RUSHEN, Director, California Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant. No. 81-4009. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 14, 1981. Decided June 2, 1982. Shirley A. Nelson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for respondent-appellant. Mark L. Christiansen, Deputy State Public Defender, Sacramento, Cal., for petitioner-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before WALLACE and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, * District Judge. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellee James Cahill was convicted of first degree murder in California state court in February 1975, after a trial in which his confession to a police officer was admitted into evidence. After exhausting available state remedies, Cahill petitioned the court below for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court granted the writ on the ground that the State had interfered with Cahill's sixth amendment right to counsel. Cahill v. Rushen, 501 F.Supp. 1219 (E.D.Cal.1980). We affirm because we conclude that the confession was "deliberately…

Appellee James Cahill was convicted of first degree murder in California state court in February 1975, after a trial in which his confession to a police officer was admitted into evidence. After exhausting available state remedies, Cahill petitioned the court below for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court granted the writ on the ground that the State had interfered with Cahill’s sixth amendment right to counsel. Cahill v. Rushen, 501 F.Supp. 1219 (E.D.Cal.1980). We affirm because we conclude that the confession was “deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.” Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206 , 84 S.Ct. 1199, 1203 , 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964).

FACTS

In 1972 Cahill was arrested on suspicion of murder in connection with the death of an accomplice in a check forgery scheme. Beginning soon after his arrest, Cahill, without the assistance of counsel, was questioned by Captain Carter of the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office on at least four separate occasions. He was apprised of and waived his Miranda rights on the first three occasions; on the fourth, which took place the day the indictment was handed…

dissenting:

The district court in this case held that the rule of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 , 84 S.Ct. 1199 , 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964) (Massiah), applies at least until the filing of a notice of appeal in a criminal prosecution. Cahill v. Rushen, 501 F.Supp. 1219,1224 (E.D.Cal.1980). I would hold this to be an improper application of Massiah . While the majority asserts that the case presents a “narrow issue,” it extends the district court’s erroneous interpretation by holding that the Massiah doctrine applies to statements deliberately elicited from a convicted defendant, at least without the prior advice of counsel, that are used “at any subsequent trial on the charges for which the defendant is then under indictment.” Thus, the majority compounds the district court’s error by applying the sixth amendment Massiah rule to a confrontation between a defendant and law enforcement authorities that occurs not only after a jury verdict, after a judgment of conviction, and after sentencing, but also after the filing of an appeal.

The sixth amendment, however, has absolutely no application to events such as these that take place outside of the courtroom subsequent to…