540 U.S. 519 (2004)
On February 24, 2000, a grand jury indicted John J. Fellers for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Lincoln Police Sergeant Michael Garnett and Lancaster County Deputy Sheriff Jeff Bliemeister went to Fellers's home in Lincoln, Nebraska, to arrest him pursuant to a federal warrant.1 The officers knocked on the door, identified themselves, and entered the living room after Fellers invited them inside.2
The officers advised Fellers that they had come to discuss his involvement in methamphetamine distribution. They informed him that a grand jury had indicted him for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and that the indictment referred to his involvement with four named individuals.3 Fellers then stated that he knew the four people and had used methamphetamine during his association with them.
After approximately fifteen minutes, the officers transported Fellers to the Lancaster County jail.4 At the jail, the officers advised Fellers of his Miranda rights for the first time, and Fellers signed a Miranda waiver form along with the officers.5 Fellers then reiterated the inculpatory statements he had made at his home and made additional admissions about associating with other individuals implicated in the conspiracy and loaning money to one of them.6
Before trial, Fellers moved to suppress both the statements made at his home and those made at the jail.7 A Magistrate Judge recommended suppressing the home statements for lack of Miranda warnings.8 The Magistrate Judge recommended that portions of the jailhouse statements be suppressed as fruits of the prior failure to provide Miranda warnings.9 The District Court suppressed the home statements but admitted the jailhouse statements, finding that Fellers had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.10 After a jury trial in which the jailhouse statements were admitted, Fellers was convicted, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction.11 The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the case.12
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit improperly held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not applicable because the officers did not interrogate the petitioner at his home?13
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is triggered at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated, whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.14 An accused is denied the basic protections of the Sixth Amendment when there is used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.15 Courts apply this deliberate-elicitation standard even when no interrogation occurs. The standard remains distinct from the Fifth Amendment custodial-interrogation test.16
Yes. Garnett and Bliemeister deliberately elicited statements from Fellers at his home by advising him that they had come to discuss his involvement in methamphetamine distribution, and by informing him that the indictment referred to his involvement with four named individuals.17 Fellers responded by stating that he knew the four people and had used methamphetamine during his association with them.18 These events occurred after the grand jury indictment, outside the presence of counsel, and without any waiver of Fellers's Sixth Amendment rights.19
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit therefore erred by holding that Patterson was inapplicable because the officers did not interrogate Fellers at his home.20
The Court of Appeals improperly held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not applicable because the officers did not interrogate the petitioner at his home.21
Whether the admissibility of the petitioner's jailhouse statements turns solely on whether they were knowingly and voluntarily made under the rule of Oregon v. Elstad?22
Because the Court of Appeals erroneously determined that petitioner was not questioned in violation of Sixth Amendment standards, it improperly conducted its fruits analysis under the Fifth Amendment.23 The Court has not had occasion to decide whether the rationale of Elstad applies when a suspect makes incriminating statements after a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel notwithstanding earlier police questioning in violation of Sixth Amendment standards.24 The case is therefore remanded to the Court of Appeals to address this issue in the first instance.25
No. The Court of Appeals applied Oregon v. Elstad to conclude that the jailhouse statements were admissible solely because Fellers had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before reiterating his inculpatory statements and making additional admissions at the Lancaster County jail.26 Because the home statements resulted from deliberate elicitation that violated the Sixth Amendment, the Court of Appeals should have determined whether the jailhouse statements must be suppressed as fruits of the prior Sixth Amendment violation.27 The Supreme Court remands the case for the Court of Appeals to address the issue.28
The Court of Appeals improperly applied the rule of Oregon v. Elstad to the jailhouse statements without addressing whether they were the fruits of a Sixth Amendment violation, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.29