With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by a fellow prisoner who stated and will testify that Alan Pursell admitted killing the boy. Now that is something that is dramatic to say the least, and was certainly not in the case before, and I do understand that it was provided to the district attorney’s office only on Friday and they gave it to me immediately. (Voir Dire Tr. 1/19/82, at 368-69) (emphasis added). If anything, counsel’s statement creates the impression that DeFoy approached the government, without any prior agreement. Indeed, DeFoy’s statement seemed to have caught the police themselves off guard, coming as it did on the eve of trial. Under these circumstances, Pursell’s counsel could reasonably conclude that Massiah simply did not apply to this case. See United States v. Yeager, 428 F.2d 182, 184 (3d Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). Second, there is nothing in the record to

A: holding that sixth amendment not violated when sentence enhanced based on prior convictions that were not charged in indictment or admitted by defendant
B: holding that the sixth amendment is violated when the state obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accuseds right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent
C: holding that sixth amendment not violated when defendant makes incriminating statements after indictment to persons who are not related to the government
D: holding that a defendants sixth amendment confrontation clause rights are violated when a court admits into evidence an incriminating statement given by a nontestifying codefendant
C.