*1 Tennessee, Appellee, STATE SPARKS, Appellant.
Willie Tennessee,
Supreme Court of
at Knoxville.
March
Rehearing Denied March Chattanooga, ap-
Rodney Strong, C. Farr, pellant; of counsel. Jessee 0. Gen., Cody, Atty. W.J. Michael Gordon Gen., Smith, Atty. Frank M. W. Asst. Sloan, Groves, Attys. Asst. Dist. Jerry S. Gen., Nashville, appellee. OPINION HARBISON, Justice. of armed rob- was convicted degree in
bery murder in the first and of robbery of Rob- perpetration of armed Boddie, Athens delivery man for the ert the victim Distributing Company, while liquor store premises was on the of a retail present In addition to the Chattanooga. offenses, jury found of three oth- previously convicted the use or threat involved er felonies which (2) that the person and of violence to the appel- while committed instant murder was committing robbery. engaged in lant was circum- aggravating Therefore found imposition of justified stances which provisions of penalty under the the death 2—203(i)(2) (7). The trial T.C.A. § 39— and sentence. judge approved the verdict affirm. p.m., Robert July at about Distributing Boddie, for Athens a driver dealer, Company, a wholesale making a and killed while shot three times Liquor on Glass Daddy’s Store delivery at li- Chattanooga. A clerk at the Street ground lying on the quor store saw Boddie deliv- standing and a black male beside *2 ery going through pellant truck gave a billfold. The a denying gun. clerk did not see knowledge deny- a When she shouted of the Boddie murder and man, at ing he fled foot. spoken She described that he had with Jones Nich- having hair, him as short no beard ols and since he had been in Atlanta. wearing a sports short-sleeved shirt and Both and Nichols for Jones were indicted pants. dark At p.m.” “about 4:00 on the robbery degree armed and first murder as day, Steele, visiting same Desica who was a Mr. result of death. At the trial Boddie’s liquor store, friend about block from the of appellant they essentially to testified man, saw a black 5 feet inches about tall same Their facts. was that on weighing approximately and to 170 July they company went to a loan where pounds, standing by power pole near the picked up Nichols that pistol a .38 caliber store, liquor through going a wallet. This he pawned days had for Jones a few earli- gun pants man had in his was and wear- Jones, day er. that Later Nichols t-shirt, ing a jeans, blue cut-off faded blue appellant and sell went to some food sweat socks tennis shoes. When this Jones, stamps for Nichols met Lebrón Grif- Steele, man saw witness he ran in the fin appellant. referred to After opposite Daddy’s Liquor direction Store. appellant spoke Griffin, he asked good Steele testified that she had a look at Nichols to drive him to Glass Street man, but she identify was unable to pistol. According Jones to lend to anyone person trial as she had seen. Nichols, appellant explained a man Investigating police officers not find did a with he speaking whom had been had told deceased, wallet on the although other tes- him money he could make some extra he timony customarily he showed that carried got pistol an empty and met him behind one. Daddy’s “go- liquor Store where By early August, 1983, investigation up rip-off.” to set Nichols said by police Jones, led to Michael Nich- Melvin thought robbery” that he that a “fake was appellant ols Sparks. Willie The latter planned. appellant told Jones testified by then had left state. Jones and Nich- something had set been with the cooperated ols with the and were going delivery give man who was to them important permitted trial witnesses. Jones money. gave appellant gun, tap telephone. which both he and Nichols said unload- was ed. Angel Detectives and Staf- ford participated in and recorded a tele- dropped appellant Nichols Jones and then phone call to the residence of away off on Glass Street and he drove person identifying appellant himself as appellant walking he Dad- saw toward Sparks. Nichols and Jones testified that dy’s that he Liquor Store. Jones testified appellant. caller was in fact the appellant went inside store out, see if it crowded. When he came the course of that was conversa- standing store. Sparks appellant tion Nichols the caller he saw beside the advised together implicated had Nichols been Street, When Nichols returned Glass the Boddie murder an informant. something who told him that saw Jones Nichols stated that a warrant However, “going on.” was Jones testified issued arrest both. He told the did that he told Nichols that he planned Chattanooga caller that he to leave Sparks About know where was. go Atlanta. The caller stated that he and no Sparks, this time shirtless Atlanta, already ar- and the two longer pistol, running down came ranged day to meet there the next at the got Nichols’ car. He street and bus station. “the told and Jones that it was there,” he had to wrong guy was at the bus near the back station appointed guy” old “he started day time the next and was ar- shoot “the because Arthur, getting “jumped rested there John an officer of smart with me” it, Georgia did Investigation. Ap- why me.” Jones asked Bureau When appellant replied going that “If he discovery The interview led to the of no down, go way.” all wanted new evidence. Sparks told Nichols had hidden the More than a week before conversa- gun in a hole behind a church on Glass occurred, tion at the Stafford had ob- Street. The was introduced into evi- weapon tained the murder from one Lebrón dence, expert and a firearms testified that Griffin. Both Nichols and *3 body removed from the bullet victim’s testimony, as the identified Griffin individ- gun. had been fired from Jones’ suggested appellant partic- ual who appellant jail While Chattanoo- ipate testimony in the homicide. The August 25, 1988, ga, telephoned he Nichols and Jones that redeemed this him to asked come for a visit. weapon pawn shop from on the date of the Jones informed the of this homicide, 8,1983, by July was corroborated call, Chattanooga Stafford Detective documentary pawn shop. evidence from by placing wired Jones for sound a micro- homicide, Nichols testified that after the phone person on his and instructed him to appellant gave pistol. again him the It was accept appellant’s request for a visit so placed in pawn, showing and a ticket its intercepted
that their conversation could be August withdrawal on was like- through and could be heard introduced into wise evidence. by Detective Stafford while remained by hidden in a room next to the room used Before the conversation between Sparks appellant jail Jones and for their conversation. in the on Au- occurred try He instructed Jones “to be normal and gust weapon had been sub- to, any just not to talk more than he had by Georgia police jected test to a ballistics see what wanted.” officials and confirmed to be one from shots had been fired. fatal during
Jones testified that
this conversa-
appellant
things
tion
told him that
looked
there was a
Appellant insists that
viola
for him
bad
and that Nichols had set
tion of his
to counsel when
up.
planned
Therefore
to have Nichols
arranged
authorities
sanctioned the
killed. Stafford also testified to the sub-
Appellant
contact between
and Jones.
stance of this conversation which he over-
States,
relies
Massiah v. United
heard. He said that
had asked
84 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 246
about
and threatened Nichols who (1964);
Henry,
v.
United States
had set
at the bus station Atlan-
(1980);
L.Ed.2d 115
100 S.Ct.
interpreted appellant’s
ta. He
remarks as
Moulton, 474 U.S.
106 S.Ct.
v.
Maine
nothing
hap-
implying that
would have
and similar cases
undercover
have
Amendment. See also
the Sixth
travene
Suppression
A. The
Issue
(Tenn.1980)
rect or circumstantial. It need not the other raised counsel All of issues itself, support sufficient a conviction. previously con- for have been corroborating fairly If the evidence by the Court and in our do sidered legitimately to connect tends the accused judgment not reversal of the or warrant with the commission crime will be carried the sentence. sentence charged, requirement it satisfies the July by law on 1987 provided out as the rule on corroboration of the accom- stayed by order of Court unless plice’s State, testimony. 204 Sherrill v. All costs are as- proper authority. other (1959). Slight Tenn. 321 S.W.2d appellant. sessed to circumstances be sufficient to fur- necessary nish the corroboration of an DROWOTA, JJ., concur. COOPER accomplice’s testimony. Garton BROCK, C.J., State, in which files dissent Tenn. S.W.2d J., FONES, question of concurs. corroboration FONES, Justices, spoken dissent- that he with Jones BROCK claimed ing. or Nichols since he had been Atlanta. Both Jones and for Nichols indicted respectfully dissent. robbery degree murder armed and first as July p.m., 3:00 Rob- about of Mr. but a result Boddie’s death both Boddie, a driver Athens Distribut- ert for at the de- testified behalf of the State dealer, Company, liquor ing a wholesale basically fendant’s trial to the same facts. three times while mak- was shot and killed The scenario revealed delivery Daddy’s Liquor Store on July to a was that went loan Chattanooga. A clerk at Glass Street company picked up where .38 lying on the liquor store saw Boddie pistol pawned caliber he had ground standing beside and a black male days couple day earlier. Later that delivery going through truck a billfold. Jones, Nichols and the defendant not see when she The clerk did stamps to sell some went food man, shouted at the he fled on foot. She Nichols met Lebrón Griffin referred hair, no having described short him to the After defendant. beard and that he wore a short-sleeved Griffin, spoke with he asked Nichols to sports pants. shirt and dark The State’s him to and Jones to lend drive Glass Street 4:00 also showed that at “about Nichols, pistol. According to him his Steele, p.m.” day, on the same Desica explained a man with whom visiting a friend a block from about told he could speaking he had been man, store saw a black about *5 got an money empty extra if he make some weighing approximately in. tall and ft. 5 Daddy’s Liquor pistol and met him behind power pole standing by 160 to 170 lbs. a up rip- set this going where “we Store store, through a going near the wal- thought he off.” Nichols said that that pants gun let. This man had in his Jones robbery” planned. was testi- “fake t-shirt, wearing a cut-off faded something was blue fied that the defendant told jeans, up delivery sweat socks and tennis shoes. man blue set with the who had been give money. he going When this man saw the witness Steele them the Jones was Li- both he opposite Daddy’s gun, direction defendant the gave ran quor had a said unloaded. Steele testified that she and Nichols was Store. man, good unable to look at but was dropped Nichols then Jones anyone in as the identify the courtroom as he drove fendant off Glass Street Investigating police had seen. man she heading toward away saw the defendant he not find on the de- officers did a wallet testified Liquor that Daddy’s Store. Jones ceased, although testimony showed other for liquor store inside the he went customarily carried one. that he crowded. When to see if it was defendant out, stand- he the defendant came saw he investigation police led on the store. beside 11, 1983, Jones, August to Michael Melvin Sparks, and the Street, Nichols defendant Willie Glass Nichols When returned by then had left state. Jones and him, “Something who told saw who he cooperate decided to with the on, However, testified Jones going man.” po- investigation. allowed the Jones he didn’t Nichols that he told that telephone tricked tap lice to and Nichols was. About where know believing meet the defendant into he would was shirtless time this running Bus Station longer pistol, the defendant at Atlanta came had the and no morning. Nichols car. Accordingly, got the next the street and down 1983, Jones that arrested in Nichols and defendant was told The defendant there,” that he Atlanta, Georgia, wrong guy to the bus back when he came “the was “he guy” because gave shoot “the old station to see Nichols. The defendant had to me” and knowledge getting of Mr. smart denying any started why asked falsely me.” Jones “jumped When robbery Boddie’s murder 485 it, replied individual; “If ings against he did the defendant he are commenced down, going go he wanted all the from that moment on he is entitled to the way.” The defendant told Nichols that legal representation when the gun had hidden the in a hole behind a government through any of its at church Glass Street. The in- interrogate tempts him. v. Massiah Un troduced into ex- evidence and a firearms States, 201, 84 12 ited pert testified a bullet removed from (1964); Williams, L.Ed.2d 246 Brewer body the victim’s had been from fired 430 97 S.Ct. 51 U.S. gun. Jones’ (1977); Illinois, 424 Kirby L.Ed.2d 406 U.S. 92 S.Ct. 32 L.Ed.2d the defendant was
While Chatta- (1972); Moulton, Maine v. U.S. telephoned nooga he Jones and asked him (1985); 106 S.Ct. to come and him. visit Jones informed the — Wilson, -, of this call Kuhlmann v. and Chattanoo- ga (1986); Detective Stafford wired L.Ed.2d 364 State v. Jones by placing microphone per- Mitchell, Tenn., sound on his 593 S.W.2d accept son and instructed him to the de- Maine, explained: the Court request fendant’s for a so visit “As indicated in the last sentence intercepted through conversation could be paragraph, recognized the Court has also and could De- be heard the assistance counsel cannot be Stafford tective while remained hidden trial; participation in a limited to de- in a room next to the room used prive person during peri- counsel and the defendant for their conversation. prior od damaging to trial more be during testified that this conversa- than during denial of counsel the trial tion the things told him that Recognizing itself. the right looked bad and that Nichols had set shaped by assistance of counsel is going so to have Nichols counsel, need for the assistance of killed. Detective Stafford also testified to have found that attaches at substance conversation which earlier, stages in ‘critical’ the criminal overheard, about how the defendant had *6 justice process might ‘where the results asked about the and threatened Nich- well settle the accused’s fate and reduce ols who he believed had up set him at the (Ci- formality.’ to the trial itself a mere bus interpreted station in He Atlanta. de- omitted.) And, ‘[wjhatever it tations else fendant’s remarks as implying nothing mean, right granted may the to counsel happened would have if kept Nichols had and the Sixth Fourteenth Amend- his mouth shut. person ments means at least that a is Perhaps the most urged by serious issue help lawyer to a at entitled the or the appeal defendant is that the judicial proceedings the after the time denying court erred in pre-trial motion against initiated have been him....’ suppress to evidence of his conversation 387, 398, Williams, Brewer jail with Jones in the Chattanooga at August which was recorded because, (1977). This is after the initi- Detective Stafford from a adversary proceedings, ation criminal placed person of Jones the detec- itself government ‘the has committed to issue, course, tive. is whether positions prosecute and ... the adverse defendant’s Sixth Amendment government and defendant have solidi- and, so, counsel was if violated whether is fied. It then the defendant finds admitting error in conversation prosecutorial himself faced prejudicial. evidence was and organized society, forces of im- well in It is settled that the to counsel mersed the intricacies of substantive ” (Citation proceeding procedural a criminal and law.’ attaches under criminal omitted.) Moulton, Sixth Amendment United States Maine v. adversary proceed- Constitution as soon as at 484. Mitchell, (4) and give this Court remain silent statement,
recognized that no a defendant’s Sixth Amend- ment to counsel existed at time of (5) given the fact that identification, noting lineup that formal voluntarily may against be used charge fendant, arrest had marked the com- prosecution. mencement (6) general circumstances under at 286. S.W.2d pretrial which the defendant obtain release, and Although the record on issue is preliminary to a examina- sketchy are somewhat satisfied tion. adversary judicial proceedings shows If preliminary the defendant waives ex- begun had at the time the State wired amination, magistrate shall forthwith eavesdropped upon for sound If grand jury. bind over in the conversation with the does not preliminary waive ex- County jail. Hamilton defendant had amination, magistrate set a pre- shall days arrested Atlanta 13 earlier days liminary examination ten within brought to Chatta- custody, the defendant remains nooga where he the time remained days if thirty appli- released under within August 25, of the conversation on Rule Rules of cable law.” Tennessee note that Rule Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Procedure, inwas effect and con- Criminal trolled the situation at that time. Perti- At trial Detective was asked Stafford portions of rule are: nent you place “all this took after had whether city the matter already been court and Appearance “Rule 5. Initial Before (sic) prelimi- over been bound
Magistrate. (a) Any person arrested ex- — nary hearing.” answer- Detective Stafford cept upon pursuant indict- capias an Moreover, ed affirmative. tran- presentment ment or shall be taken with- script secretly recorded unnecessary delay out before the nearest following statements: itself contained appropriate magistrate county Friday from which for arrest issued in court they the warrant “Jones: So what do county the alleged or the of- man? fense if the arrest was made occurred prelimi- They just “Sparks: waived without issued arrested plaint in accordance magistrate, arrested before [*] shall pursuant person appears a warrant unless magistrate without [*] be the with filed magistrate to Rule 3.5. [*] a warrant this rule. forthwith. an [*] affidavit *7 initially shall [*] If person citation When before brought proceed of com- [*] is wouldn’t dude nary there I didn’t ols?] stand. [*] * hearing running I You get a chance to see [*] * recommend representing know off [*] * they it looked [*] * that made [?] mouth. [Nichols] I take [*] * him. The that bad. said, [Nich- [*] * (d) charged is Felonies. If the offense Yeah, good if I a real law- “Sparks: had felony, shall not be defendant case, I but ain’t yer, I could beat this magistrate The upon plead. called to lawyer I talked to lawyer. The got no of: shall inform the defendant $15,- $15,000, got I no but ain’t wanted (1) charge and the contents of the 000.” of complaint, affidavit contrary, being no indication There (2) right counsel, to performed that local officials we assume Rule Ten- prescribed by
(3) their duties as appointed to counsel Thus, of Criminal Procedure. nessee Rules indigent, 19, 1983, hearing obviously gust the date This itself occurred on conversation 25, 1983, previous Friday city Au- court. and the next was 487 hearing are referred satisfied that ment had outfitted with radio transmit- by by gained to Detective Stafford and the defend- ter. to thus was held Sparks Appearance ant “Initial was the be inadmissible. pre- Magistrate” required as Before Berry, In this Court State con- scribed Rule Tennessee Rules of interrogation use of demned the an when In our hear- Criminal Procedure. view this placed jail T.B.I. undercover were
ing marked the commencement of adver- with the defendant and held extended con-
judicial
case,
sary
proceedings in this
enti-
versations with him. Also
State v.
tling the
to
defendant
his Sixth Amend-
Webb, Tenn.Crim.App., 625 S.W.2d
ment
of counsel. We do not under-
(1980),
283-84
an
undercover
majority
holds otherwise.
stand
agent
placed
jail
was
the same
as the
Once the
defendant to
and his
co-defendant
Court
attached,
had
it was
assistance
counsel
held
substance of
conversation
incumbent
the State to honor it.
between
defendant and co-defendant
simply
than
“This means more
illegally
was
obtained.
prevent
cannot
the accused
ob-
State
from
Henry,
447
United States v.
U.S.
taining the assistance of
counsel.
(1980)
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
imposes upon
Amendment also
Sixth
found that
to
Henry’s
Court
coun-
obligation
respect
an
affirmative
to
sel had
violated
told a
preserve
seek
the accused’s choice to
paid
Henry
confined to
with
informant
Brennan,
Justice
assistance.”
any
to
to
made by
be alert
“Fed-
Moulton, supra,
Maine v.
at 106
any
prisoners”
eral
but not to initiate
con-
Did the State violate the defendant’s
Henry
question
versation
re-
in
assistance
counsel in this
crime.
garding the
Factors deemed to be
Did
“intentionally
stance?
the State
create
(1)
important
the Court
the infor-
likely
a situation
to induce [the defendant]
acting
mant
under instructions as an
incriminating
make
statements?” Unit
(2)
informer,
the defendant was not
Henry,
ed States v.
role
aware of
informant’s true
as a
informer
knew
fellow
inmate
that the defendant was in
The defendant initiated the
contact
spoke
when he
custody under indictment
by telephoning
asking
Significantly,
with the informant.
jail.
sought
he visit
defendant at
opinion
that it
Court
did not
the advice of Detective Stafford with whom
first
matter that
mentioned
agreed
cooperate,
and Stafford
investiga-
of the crime
subject
under
if he
willing
asked
would be
to wear
tion.
tape
connected to a
recorder
talking
while was
with the
from the
in Maine v.
quote
agreed.
which Jones
Detective Stafford Moulton, supra, as follows:
try
instructed Jones “to be normal and
“The Government
United States
[in
too,
talk
just
more than
supra
argued that
should not
Henry,
]
But,
ensuing
what he
see
wanted.”
responsible for Nichols’ conduct
be held
recorded
and overheard
agent
its
because
had instructed
officers.
question
in-
Henry and had not
not to
In other cases the introduction
evi-
that Nichols take affirmative
tended
*8
incriminating
intercepted
statements.
secretly
steps
dence
conversations
obtain
that,
by
finding
rejected
argument,
in
similar manner
un-
this
informants or
circumstances,
agent
agents
dercover
In
‘must
has
condemned.
under the
co-defendant,
Massiah,
would take
supra, Massiah’s
known’ that Nichols
af-
have
incriminating
surreptitiously
steps
to secure
cooperating
who
with
firmative
S.Ct.,
271,
at
at
State authorities
instructions of
information.
Id.
held,
Consequently,
‘[b]y
court
government,
Massiah to
invited
discuss
car,
creating
likely
pending
govern-
intentionally
case in
which
a situation
incriminating
Henry
guarantees
induce
to make
Amendment
the ac-
Sixth
the assistance of
cused,
statements without
at least after the initiation of for-
Henry’s
counsel the
violated
Government
charges,
right
rely
mal
on counsel
Sixth Amendment
to counsel’
Id.
as a ‘medium’
him and the
between
S.Ct.,
at
at 2189.” 106 S.Ct. at
above,
guarantee
State. As noted
this
obli-
includes the State’s affirmative
cir-
gation not to
in a manner that
act
argued
In
it
the instant case
is
that there
protections
is no violation of defendant’s
to coun-
cumvents
accorded
right.
sel because the defendant himself called
by invoking
accused
this
by
initiating the
for the visit
thus
action
particular
termination whether
disposing
of a similar ar-
conversation.
agents
state
the accused’s
violates
Moulton,
gument
in Maine v.
must be
to the assistance of counsel
Supreme Court said:
Thus,
obligation.
light
made in
of this
place,
identity
“In
of the
the first
not violated
the Sixth Amendment
is
party
instigated
meeting
at
happenstance
by luck or
—the
whenever—
obtained incrimi
which the Government
incriminating statements
State obtains
nating
was not decisive or
statements
right to coun-
from the accused after the
important to our decision in Massi-
even
U.S.,
Henry,
sel has attached. See
Thus,
it
Henry.
ah or
while Massiah
J.,
(Powell,
S.Ct.,
at
at 2189
agent
the Government’s
have been
However, knowing exploi-
concurring).
responsible
setting up
who was
opportunity to
tation
of an
meeting with the
one dis
counsel be-
confront the accused without
looking
opin
only by
covers this
ing present
is as much a breach
Appeals.
It
ions of the Court of
obligation
State’s
not to circumvent
opinion
mentioned in this Court’s
since
as is
right to the assistance of counsel
meeting
the issue of who set
oppor-
the intentional creation of such
disposi
pertinent
whom was not
to our
Accordingly,
Amend-
tunity.
the Sixth
Moreover,
years
tion.
four
after Massi-
obtains
ment is violated when the State
summarily
the court
reversed a con
ah
knowingly
incriminating
statements
requested
where the defendant
viction
circumventing the accused’s
meeting and initiated and led the
present in a confrontation
have counsel
incriminating
agent.
state
the accused and a
between
made
statements were
to an undercover
principle
to the case
“Applying
States, 389
Beatty
informant.
v. United
hand,
violated
it is clear that the State
234, 19
L.Ed.2d 48
Amendment
when
Moulton’s Sixth
curiam).
case,
In that
the Solicitor
(per
arranged to record conversations be-
argument
made the same
General
infor-
its undercover
tween Moulton and
today, see Brief
he and the State make
mant,
police who
It was the
Colson.
States,
Opposition, Beatty
O.T.
v. United
that he record
suggested to Colson
5-8;
pp.
rejected this
No.
Moulton.
telephone
conversations
simply cited
argument in an
recordings
these
Having learned from
Finally, Henry,
we deemed
Massiah.
going to
and Colson were
that Moulton
agent
it ‘irrelevant that Massiah
meet,
Colson to let them
police asked
meeting
arrange
had to
between
on him to
body wire transmitter
put a
Massiah and his co-defendant where here
Keat-
Police Chief
was said.
record what
enough to
were fortunate
that,
they made
admitted
already in
have an undercover informant
they must
police knew—as
request, the
proximity to the accused.’ 447 U.S.
close
the recorded
n. 10.
known from
n.
100 S.Ct. at
have
Moulton and Colson
conversations—that
this,
limit
Beyond
attempt
State’s
purpose of
express
meeting for the
holdings
Henry
fun
our
Massiah
plan-
charges and
discussing
pending
damentally misunderstands the nature of
*9
police
for the trial.
ning a defense
recognized in those cases.
the
through
testimony
thus knew that Moulton
jury
would make
before the
the
of
Moreover,
statements that he had a constitutional
and Detective
Stafford.
prior
agent
not to make to their
duly
pre-trial
the
motion
filed
consulting with
in Henry
counsel. As
suppress
the State’s evidence of the con-
police
the fact that the
were ‘fortunate
ground
the
versation on
it was ob-
enough
agent
to have an undercover
al-
tained in
violation
the defendant’s Sixth
ready
proximity
in close
to the accused’
Amendment
to counsel and the court
does not excuse their conduct under
overruled
the motion
held
the
(Citations omitted.)
these circumstances.
evidence was admissible. The defendant
concealing
By
the fact that Colson was
excepted and contends before us that the
agent
State,
police
of the
the
denied
failing
suppress
order of the
court
opportunity
Moulton the
to consult with
prejudicial
evidence was
error.
counsel and thus denied him the assist-
conclude,
We are
as held
unable
the
guaranteed by
ance of counsel
the Sixth majority,
court in
error
the trial
Amendment.”
of was introduced into evidence before the although they
jury, were made exhibits in only,
the record for identification but placed
substance of conversation was