State v. Robinson
1411017691
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Jacquez Robinson was indicted for separate November 2014 shootings (murder and assault). The murder-related charges proceeded to trial; assault charges were severed.
- While preparing for trial, prosecutors suspected Robinson's trial counsel had disclosed protected witness information; the DOJ and county prosecutors opened an investigation related to a separate gang case (TMG Protective Order).
- On June 30, 2017 DOC personnel, at the DOJ's direction, entered Robinson’s cell without a warrant and seized legal materials; State personnel and investigators reviewed seized documents and ultimately returned them days later.
- Robinson moved to dismiss the indictment under the Sixth Amendment, alleging state intrusion into the attorney-client relationship; he also sought access for his new motion counsel to the seized materials for review.
- The court framed three central questions: the standard to establish a Sixth Amendment violation from state intrusion, the scope of factual inquiry, and what remedy is appropriate (this opinion addresses the first two).
- The court ordered the State to produce seized documents for in camera review, to respond to discovery requests promptly, and to produce witnesses for a hearing to resolve factual questions about access, disclosure, and any deliberate interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for proving Sixth Amendment violation from state intrusion into attorney-client materials | Robinson: warrantless seizure and review of legal papers violated Sixth Amendment; prejudice should be presumed if defense strategy disclosed or State deliberately interfered | State: Weatherford requires proof of prejudice; no disclosure or deliberate intrusion occurred; prosecutors were screened | Court: Applies Weatherford prejudice requirement; adopts Third Circuit frameworks (Costanzo/Levy/Morrison); presumption of prejudice under Levy only if defense strategy actually disclosed or deliberate interference found |
| Burden of proof to show prejudice | Robinson: shifts to State if government acted improperly | State: defendant must prove prejudice | Court: Burden lies with Robinson unless Levy presumption applies or deliberate interference is found |
| Scope of inquiry into seized materials and who reviewed them | Robinson: motion counsel must meaningfully review all seized legal materials and learn who accessed them | State: some documents returned; prosecutors claim they did not review materials; paralegal involvement disputed | Court: Ordered State to produce retained copies, permit contact to copy returned documents, conduct in camera review, and hold a hearing with witnesses (including paralegal and investigators) to determine access and disclosure facts |
| Remedy if violation proved | Robinson: dismissal warranted by intrusion | State: dismissal is extraordinary; remedy must fit injury | Court: Did not decide remedy here; follows Morrison principle that remedy must be tailored to actual injury and will be addressed later |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (Sixth Amendment intrusion requires prejudice; no violation where no disclosure or purposeful intrusion produced no prejudice)
- United States v. Costanzo, 740 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1984) (articulates three-branch Weatherford test for government intrusion)
- United States v. Levy, 577 F.2d 200 (3d Cir. 1978) (presumption of prejudice when defense strategy is actually disclosed to prosecution)
- United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (1981) (remedy for deliberate interference must be tailored to the injury; dismissal extraordinary without shown adverse consequence)