## Facts

- Perley Moulton, Jr., represented by counsel, was indicted in Maine for theft by receiving automotive vehicles and parts and pleaded not guilty.
- Codefendant Gary Colson reported receiving threatening calls related to the pending charges and sought to speak with police.
- Before contacting police, Colson met with Moulton to discuss trial preparation; Colson later claimed Moulton suggested killing a State’s witness.
- Colson, accompanied by his attorney, confessed his role in the charged thefts and agreed to cooperate with the State in exchange for no additional charges.
- Police arranged to record Colson’s telephone conversations and then secured Colson’s consent to wear a body-wire to record an in-person meeting with Moulton.
- Police knew the meeting’s purpose was to plan defense strategy for the upcoming trial; officers told Colson not to question Moulton, but Colson’s comments prompted incriminating statements.
- The prosecution introduced portions of the recordings at trial to prove the already-charged theft offenses, and Moulton was convicted on some counts.

## Issues

1. Whether, after indictment and appointment/retention of counsel, the State violates the Sixth Amendment by using a wired codefendant acting as a State agent to obtain incriminating statements about the pending charges outside counsel’s presence.
2. Whether an asserted investigative purpose involving other suspected crimes (e.g., threats or witness tampering) permits admission at trial of statements that incriminate the defendant on the pending charges.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state high court’s judgment ordering a new trial.
- The Court held that admitting at trial Moulton’s post-indictment statements to Colson about the charged theft offenses violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- The Court rejected a broad “good faith” or “separate investigation” rationale that would allow the State to use statements about pending charges obtained through a covert State agent outside counsel’s presence.

## Legal Principles

- After formal charges, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to rely on counsel as an intermediary in confrontations with the State concerning the charged offense.
- The State violates the Sixth Amendment when it knowingly circumvents the right to counsel by using a State agent or informant to deliberately elicit incriminating statements about the pending charges in the absence of counsel.
- The right is not defeated because police also had an investigative interest in other suspected crimes; the State may investigate, but it may not use that investigation to obtain and admit statements about the charged offense secured through a purposeful intrusion into the attorney-client relationship.
- The constitutional violation turns on the State’s knowing exploitation of an opportunity to obtain statements about the pending case from an indicted, represented defendant without counsel present, and on the use of those statements at trial.

## Conclusion

Because the State used a wired codefendant to obtain and introduce at trial incriminating post-indictment statements about the charged theft offenses, the convictions could not stand; the Sixth Amendment barred admission of those statements notwithstanding the State’s asserted investigation of other criminal conduct.


Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985)