385 U.S. 293 (1966)
In the autumn of 1962 a federal jury trial known as the Test Fleet case took place in Nashville, Tennessee, charging James Hoffa alone with violating a provision of the Taft-Hartley Act.1 The trial ran from October 22 to December 23 and ended in a hung jury.2 Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, occupied a three-room suite at the Andrew Jackson Hotel throughout the proceedings and was accompanied on most occasions by petitioner Ewing King, president of the Nashville local.3
Partin, a Baton Rouge Teamsters official, was facing state and federal criminal charges including embezzlement of union funds.4 He first telephoned Hoffa on October 8, 1962, to discuss union matters and his own legal difficulties.5 He called again on October 18 and arranged to meet Hoffa in Nashville.6
Between those calls and his arrival in Nashville on October 22, Partin consulted several times with federal law-enforcement agents, who told him Hoffa might attempt to tamper with the Test Fleet jury, and asked him to report any such activity.7 Partin agreed and, once in Nashville, spent nearly every day in Hoffa's hotel suite, the hotel lobby, the courthouse, and other locations, reporting conversations about jury bribery to federal agent Sheridan on a regular basis.8
After the Test Fleet trial concluded, Partin's wife received four monthly payments of $300 from government funds and the pending state and federal charges against Partin were dropped or not actively pursued.9 Partin's reports and later testimony supplied leads that were used to develop evidence against all four petitioners.10 The district court found that the government had not placed Partin among the defendants and the court of appeals accepted that finding as supported by substantial evidence.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question whether the government's use of Partin's evidence invalidated the 1964 convictions.12
Whether the government's use of evidence supplied by Partin violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights?13
The Fourth Amendment protects the security a person relies upon when placing himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area such as a hotel room.14 It does not protect a wrongdoer's misplaced confidence that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it, as established in Lopez v. United States.15
No. Partin entered the Andrew Jackson Hotel suite by invitation from Hoffa during the Test Fleet trial.16 Every conversation Partin heard was directed to him or carried on knowingly in his presence.17 Hoffa therefore relied on his misplaced confidence in Partin rather than the security of the hotel suite itself.18
The government's use of Partin's evidence did not violate the petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights.19
Whether the admission of Partin's testimony violated the petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?20
No. Hoffa's conversations with Partin and in Partin's presence during the Test Fleet trial were wholly voluntary.23 There was no claim or evidence of coercion of any kind, legal or factual.24 The statements occurred in a hotel suite and other public locations without custody or official interrogation.25 The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination requires some form of compulsion, which was entirely absent from these voluntary exchanges in non-custodial settings.26
The admission of Partin's testimony did not violate the petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.27
Whether Partin's presence in and around the hotel suite violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel during the Test Fleet trial?28
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the right of a defendant and his counsel to prepare for trial without intrusion upon their confidential relationship by a government agent.29 Evidence obtained must be the fruit of such a violation to be excluded in a subsequent trial on different charges.30
No. None of Hoffa's incriminating statements to which Partin testified were made in the presence or hearing of counsel or in connection with the legitimate defense of the Test Fleet prosecution.31 Instead the statements concerned a separate offense of jury bribery and were made out of the presence of any lawyers.32 Partin's evidence was not the consequence of exploitation of any assumed Sixth Amendment violation.33
Partin's presence did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a manner that required suppression in the subsequent trial.34
Whether the government's failure to arrest and charge the petitioner by October 25, 1962, violated his Sixth Amendment rights?35
No. Even assuming the government had sufficient ground by October 25 to charge Hoffa with jury tampering, the government was not required to arrest him at that moment and thereby trigger Sixth Amendment protections.38 The police are not required to guess at their peril the precise moment probable cause arises.39 This risks a violation of the Fourth Amendment if they act too soon and a violation of the Sixth Amendment if they wait too long.40
The government's failure to arrest and charge the petitioner by October 25, 1962, did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights.41
Whether the totality of the government's conduct in using Partin violated the petitioner's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?42
No. Partin was subjected to rigorous cross-examination at trial exploring his dealings with federal and state authorities.45 The trial judge instructed the jury specifically and generally on assessing Partin's credibility.46 The Constitution does not require upsetting the jury's verdict despite Partin's motives to lie.47 The established safeguards of the Anglo-American legal system leave the veracity of a witness to be tested by cross-examination, and the credibility of his testimony to be determined by a properly instructed jury.48
The totality of the government's conduct in using Partin did not violate the petitioner's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.49
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Warren dissented on the ground that the government's use of Partin presented an affront to the quality and fairness of federal law enforcement.50 He concluded that the Court should exercise its supervisory powers to order a new trial.51
Warren emphasized that Partin was a jail inmate facing serious charges who contacted authorities to work his way out of legal entanglements.52 Partin was compensated through support payments to his wife and non-prosecution of charges.53
Warren noted that Partin became the equivalent of a moving bugging device inside the defense camp and gained access to attorney-client preparations.54 This created a serious potential for undermining the integrity of the truth-finding process.55
He concluded that convictions based heavily on such testimony should not stand. The government reached into the jailhouse to employ a man facing more serious indictments for the purpose of infiltration rather than testifying to past events.56