×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Calls over Monitored Phone to Attorney not Protected by Sixth Amendment
U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert E. Larsen has recommended the denial of a motion to suppress audio recordings obtained by the United States from CCA that contained attorney-client communications.
While awaiting trial on federal charges, Gary Eye allegedly conspired to have several government witnesses murdered. Eye allegedly discussed the plot over the telephone at a CCA facility. The government obtained copies of Eye’s phone calls from CCA, but the recordings CCA turned over contained calls Eye made to his attorney, and these calls were not segregated on the disc.
Eye moved to suppress the recordings CCA produced, arguing that they violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Judge Larsen disagreed, finding that Eye “failed to satisfy his burden of proving a violation and resulting prejudice.”
Eye had consented to the calls’ monitoring, Larsen concluded, because the phones clearly indicated all calls were monitored. Furthermore, because the government never listened to any attorney-client communications, Eye could not show prejudice. See: United States v. Eye, USDC, W.D. Mo., No. 05-00344-01-CR-W-ODS (2008).
While awaiting trial on federal charges, Gary Eye allegedly conspired to have several government witnesses murdered. Eye allegedly discussed the plot over the telephone at a CCA facility. The government obtained copies of Eye’s phone calls from CCA, but the recordings CCA turned over contained calls Eye made to his attorney, and these calls were not segregated on the disc.
Eye moved to suppress the recordings CCA produced, arguing that they violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Judge Larsen disagreed, finding that Eye “failed to satisfy his burden of proving a violation and resulting prejudice.”
Eye had consented to the calls’ monitoring, Larsen concluded, because the phones clearly indicated all calls were monitored. Furthermore, because the government never listened to any attorney-client communications, Eye could not show prejudice. See: United States v. Eye, USDC, W.D. Mo., No. 05-00344-01-CR-W-ODS (2008).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
United States v. Eye
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC, W.D. Mo., No. 05-00344-01-CR-W-ODS (2008) |
| Level | District Court |
No other information is currently available.