People v. Barber, 67 N.Y.2d 587 (1986)
A defendant’s right to counsel is not violated when, although represented by counsel in a state court prosecution, the defendant testifies without counsel on behalf of a friend in a federal prosecution on related charges, provided there was no state interrogation.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s right to counsel was not violated when he testified in federal court, even though he was represented by counsel in a related state case. The defendant’s testimony in federal court, given to help a friend, was later used against him in the state prosecution. The Court reasoned that the right to counsel protects against state interrogation, and because the federal proceeding was independent and not a facade for state action, the testimony was admissible. The Court emphasized that the incriminating statements were made in response to a private attorney’s questions, not as a result of state coercion or inducement.
Facts
Defendant Barber and Raphael Rosario were arrested in a shared apartment where police found illegal weapons. Barber was charged in state court with weapon possession and forgery, and attorney Oscar Gonzalez-Suarez filed a notice of appearance on Barber’s behalf. Rosario was indicted in federal court for possessing a pistol. Rosario’s attorney, Raymond Sussman, subpoenaed Barber to testify at Rosario’s federal trial. Barber, without consulting Gonzalez-Suarez, spoke with Sussman privately. At the federal trial, Barber testified that he possessed the pistol. This testimony was later used to indict Barber in state court for criminal possession of a weapon.
Procedural History
After Barber was indicted in state court, he moved to suppress his federal court testimony, arguing that it violated his right to counsel because he had not received Miranda warnings. The People sought to disqualify Sussman due to a conflict of interest. The hearing court denied the People’s motion but granted Barber’s suppression motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals challenging the suppression ruling.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant’s right to counsel in a state criminal proceeding is violated when the defendant, while represented by counsel in that proceeding, testifies without counsel in a related federal proceeding?
Holding
No, because the incriminating statements were not obtained through interrogation by the state police or prosecutor; therefore, the statements were improperly suppressed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the scope of the right to counsel, stating that it protects individuals from incriminating statements made as a result of governmental interrogation. The Court emphasized that the right to counsel minimizes the imbalance between the accused and the State. “The right to counsel, quite simply, requires the exclusion of statements obtained from a person whose right to counsel has attached, through interrogation by agents of the State; statements induced by nongovernmental entities, acting privately, do not fall within the ambit of this exclusionary rule.” The Court clarified that “interrogation” extends beyond direct questioning to more subtle forms of state inducement. However, in this case, the incriminating statements were made in response to Sussman’s questions during the federal trial, not as a result of state coercion. The Court rejected the argument that the INS agent’s involvement or the federal courtroom setting transformed the testimony into state interrogation. Because the state did not use Sussman to elicit the statements, and Barber cooperated privately with Sussman, the right to counsel was not violated. The court found no evidence of collusion between the state and federal authorities to circumvent Barber’s right to counsel. Therefore, Barber’s motion to suppress was denied.