CAL. RULES PROF. CONDUCT, Rule 2-100. It should be made clear to the government that interviewing an incarcerated individual outside the presence of counsel is constitutionally permissible only if the interview pertains solely to the individual’s immigration status, rather than to information related to crimes for which he or she has been charged. B. Use of Statement Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment for Impeachment Purposes Although the INS interview violated the Sixth Amendment so that the statements relating to the gun offenses may not be admitted as substantive evidence in the government’s case-in-chief, the government may still use these statements to impeach Ortega’s inconsistent testimony. See Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990) (<HOLDING>). This is so because Ortega assumed a
recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel holding that under the sixth amendment a criminal defendant may waive his right to counsel if that waiver is knowing intelligent and voluntary holding that a statement taken in violation of the prophylactic rule  that once defendant invokes his sixth amendment right to counsel subsequent waiver of that right is presumed invalid if secured pursuant to policeinitiated conversation  may be used to impeach defendants inconsistent testimony holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial