## Facts

- Donnie Ray Ventris and Rhonda Theel were charged in Kansas state court with murder and related offenses arising from a shooting and robbery.
- While Ventris was jailed awaiting trial, police placed a jailhouse informant in his cell to deliberately elicit incriminating statements after charges had been filed.
- The informant later reported that Ventris admitted he had “shot and robbed” the victim.
- At trial, Ventris testified that Theel, not Ventris, shot the victim and committed the robbery.
- The State did not offer the informant’s testimony in its case-in-chief, conceded the statement was likely obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and sought to use it only to impeach Ventris’s contrary testimony.
- The trial court admitted the informant’s rebuttal testimony; the jury acquitted Ventris of murder but convicted him of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding the statement inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment.

## Issues

1. Whether a statement deliberately elicited from a charged defendant in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, though inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, may be admitted to impeach the defendant’s inconsistent trial testimony.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that Ventris’s statement, though obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment under Massiah, could be used to impeach his inconsistent testimony.
- The Court maintained the statement remained inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

## Legal Principles

- The Massiah rule bars the prosecution from using in its case-in-chief statements deliberately elicited from a formally charged defendant without counsel present.
- Exclusion for Massiah violations functions primarily as a deterrent remedy for improper pretrial interrogation, not as a categorical bar on all uses of the statement at trial.
- Voluntary statements obtained in violation of certain constitutional “prophylactic” interrogation rules may be admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching a defendant’s testimony, based on balancing deterrence benefits against the trial’s truth-testing interests.
- Truly coerced confessions implicate the Fifth Amendment’s substantive protection against compelled self-incrimination and are inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment.

## Conclusion

A defendant’s voluntary statement deliberately elicited after charges in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is excluded from the prosecution’s case-in-chief but may be introduced to impeach the defendant’s inconsistent trial testimony.


Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (2009)