## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted John J. Fellers for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
- After indictment, officers went to Fellers’s home, identified themselves, and were invited inside.
- Officers told Fellers they had a federal arrest warrant, that he had been indicted, and that they wanted to discuss his involvement in drug distribution.
- During the ensuing conversation, Fellers made inculpatory statements about his role and about four other indicted individuals.
- Officers then arrested Fellers, transported him to a county jail, administered Miranda warnings, obtained a written waiver, and questioned him; he reiterated his earlier statements.
- The district court suppressed the home statements but admitted the jail statements, reasoning that Fellers had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding there was no Sixth Amendment violation at the home because officers did not “interrogate” Fellers and treating the jail statements as admissible.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether officers violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by deliberately eliciting incriminating statements from an indicted defendant at his home without counsel present and without a waiver.
2. Whether the absence of Fifth Amendment “interrogation” forecloses a claim that later Mirandized jailhouse statements must be suppressed as fruits of an earlier Sixth Amendment violation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that the officers violated the Sixth Amendment by deliberately eliciting incriminating information from Fellers after indictment and in the absence of counsel.
- The Court held that the court of appeals erred by treating the lack of Fifth Amendment “interrogation” as dispositive of whether the later jailhouse statements could be suppressed.
- The Court remanded for the lower court to determine, under Sixth Amendment standards, whether the Mirandized jailhouse statements were inadmissible fruits of the earlier Sixth Amendment violation.

## Legal Principles

- After indictment, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, and the government may not deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the accused in counsel’s absence without a valid waiver.
- The Sixth Amendment “deliberate elicitation” standard is distinct from the Fifth Amendment/Miranda “custodial interrogation” standard; the two inquiries are not interchangeable.
- When an initial statement is obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment, later statements—even if preceded by Miranda warnings and a waiver—must be evaluated under a Sixth Amendment fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree analysis rather than by importing a Fifth Amendment/Miranda framework.

## Conclusion

The Court held that post-indictment questioning at Fellers’s home deliberately elicited incriminating statements in violation of the Sixth Amendment and that the admissibility of his later Mirandized jailhouse statements required a Sixth Amendment fruit analysis on remand, not dismissal based on the absence of Miranda-style “interrogation.”


Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 (2004)