No. 87-725 | SCOTUS | May 2, 1988
Dissenting Opinion
with whom
In Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1977-02-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/weatherford-v-bursey-109590?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="109590">429 U. S. 545, 558 (1977), we held that establishing a violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires a showing of “at least a realistic possibility” of prejudice to the defendant or benefit to the prosecution. See also United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1981-02-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-morrison-110372?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="110372">449 U. S. 361, 365-366 (1981). This case presents the issue of who bears the burden of persuasion for establishing prejudice or lack thereof when the Sixth Amendment violation involves the transmission of confidential defense strategy information. The First Circuit held that where confidential defense strategy information is transmitted to the prosecution and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of prejudice, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to prove that there was no prejudice to the defendant from the disclosure. Cinelli v. City of Revere, 820 F.2d 474" court="1st Cir." date_filed="1987-06-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/arthur-j-cinelli-v-city-of-revere-489488?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="489488">820 F. 2d 474, 478, 480 (1987); accord, United States v. Mastroianni, 749 F.2d 900" court="1st Cir." date_filed="1984-10-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-david-mastroianni-445229?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="445229">749 F. 2d 900, 907-908 (CA1 1984). This position conflicts with the approach of other Circuits of requiring the
Lead Opinion
C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.