What is the current state of the law on a motion to suppress or suppress the testimony of an informant in a criminal case?

"In Massiah v. UnitedStates[, supra,] 377 U.S. 201 [84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246], the high court held that once a judicial proceeding has been initiated against an accused and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached, any statement the government deliberately elicits from the accused in the absence of counsel is inadmissible at trial against the defendant. [Citations.] To prevail on a Massiah claim, a defendant must show that the police and the informant took some action, beyond merely listening,

Page 14

that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks. [Citations.] 'Specifically, the evidence must establish that the informant (1) was acting as a government agent, i.e., under the direction of the government pursuant to a preexisting arrangement, with the expectation of some resulting benefit or advantage, and (2) deliberately elicited incriminating statements.' [Citation.] The requirement of agency is not satisfied when law enforcement officials 'merely accept information elicited by the informant-inmate on his or her own initiative, with no official promises, encouragement, or guidance.' [Citation.] A preexisting arrangement, however, need not be explicit or formal, but may be inferred from evidence of the parties' behavior indicative of such an agreement. [Citation.] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress informant testimony is essentially a factual determination, entitled to deferential review on appeal." (People v. Coffman andMarlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 66.)