This thesis examines judicial approaches to cell-plant interrogations in Canada and the United States. These are surreptitious interrogations whereby the police inject an undercover state agent into the detention environment with the object of eliciting inculpatory statements from an accused. / This thesis examines and compares the strengths and weaknesses of Canadian and United States judicial approaches to cell-plant interrogations, and their respective applications of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights. In both countries, an accused can seek to have their incriminating statements excluded from evidence where they persuade the court that such statements were elicited by a state agent. Despite the seemingly similar language of their legal tests, Canadian and U.S. jurists define state agency and elicitation in very different ways leading potentially to very dissimilar outcomes based on the same factual circumstances.

No description available.