Sixth Amendment provisions are limited to law enforcement activity.
There was no violation of the Sixth Amendment where, following preferral, a state social services worker who had an independent duty under state law to investigate child abuse interviewed the accused. The social worker never contacted the government before or after the interview until subpoenaed. If a non-law enforcement official is not serving the “prosecution team,” he is not a member of the “prosecutorial forces of organized 1 Issuing Miranda warnings has been found sufficient to satisfy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel warning requirement. Patterson v. Illinois , 487 U.S. 285 (1988). See also Montejo v. Louisiana , 556 U.S. 778 (2009). 2 The Analysis to Mil. R. Evid. 305(d) notes it may be possible under unusual circumstances for the courts to find the Sixth Amendment right attaches prior to preferral. See United States v. Wattenbarger , 21 M.J. 41 (C.M.A. 1985) (pretrial confinement and clear movement toward prosecution found to trigger Sixth Amendment counsel right – note: court could not discern actual date of preferral of charges). That being said, mere confinement is not enough to trigger Sixth Amendment protections. A request for counsel at an RCM 305(i) hearing (hearing to review pretrial restraint) before charges have been preferred neither invokes a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, because the hearing is not an adversarial proceeding, nor invokes a Fifth Amendment right to counsel, because the hearing is not the functional equivalent of a custodial interrogation. United States v. Hanes , 34 M.J. 1168 (N.M.C.M.R. 1992). society,” and thus is not barred from contacting an accused based on a prior Sixth Amendment invocation. United States v. Moreno , 36 M.J. 107 (C.M.A. 1992)