In United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980), the defendant was indicted for robbery, had counsel appointed, and was in jail awaiting trial. Coincidentally, housed with him in the jail was a paid government informant incarcerated on forgery charges. Authorities spoke with the informant and asked him to "be alert" to any statements made by the other prisoners, but not to initiate a conversation with Henry or to ask him any questions. Later, the informant told authorities that Henry had told him about the robbery, and the informant was paid for his information. The informant then testified at Henry's trial regarding the statements Henry had made to him about the robbery. In that case, the inmate engaged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a paid informant elicited incriminating information from the defendant after the defendant's right to counsel had attached. The inmate had been a paid informant for over a year and was paid only if he produced useful information. Id. at 271. The inmate was in the Norfolk City Jail and informed an FBI agent that several federal prisoners, including Henry, were in his cellblock. Id. at 266. The agent told the inmate to be alert to any statements made by the federal prisoners but not to initiate any conversation with, or question Henry about, the bank robbery. Despite the FBI agent's admonition, the inmate took affirmative steps to secure incriminating information. Id. at 270-271. The inmate was subsequently paid for furnishing the information. Id. at 266. The questions in Henry were whether the jailhouse informant was a "government agent" and whether he had "deliberately elicited" statements from the defendant. The Court answered both questions affirmatively. The Court acknowledged the government's argument that the informant had been instructed not to question Henry. But the Court concluded that, despite this instruction, the government agent "must have known" that Henry would likely incriminate himself to the informant. Additionally, the Court noted that the informant had been more than just a passive listener - he had actually engaged in conversation with Henry. Id. The Henry Court emphasized that the defendant had not known that he was speaking to someone who would convey his words to the prosecution. It recognized that "an accused speaking to a known Government agent is typically aware that his statements may be used against him," whereas "the same cannot be said" with regard to an accused who is "in the company of a fellow inmate who is acting by prearrangement as a Government agent." It stated that "conversation stimulated in such circumstances may elicit information that an accused would not intentionally reveal to persons known to be Government agents." The Court concluded by holding that the government "intentionally created a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel," thereby violating Henry's right to counsel. Id. at 274 In sum, officers contacted an informant who had previously been paid for information, and who was in the same jail as defendant Henry. The officers placed the informant in the same cell as the defendant, and instructed the informant "to be alert to any statements made by the federal prisoners, but not to initiate any conversation with or question Henry regarding the bank robbery." ( Id. at p. 266.) The informant elicited incriminating information and testified against defendant Henry at trial. The informant was paid for his information. ( Id. at pp. 266-267.) The issue in Henry was whether the officers had "deliberately elicited" the incriminating statements. The Supreme Court found three factors important: (1) the informant was paid for his information; (2) the informant was ostensibly only a fellow inmate; (3) the conversations occurred while Henry was in custody and under indictment. (United States v. Henry, supra, 447 U.S. 264, 270.) Applying these factors, the court found that the court of appeals correctly held that Henry's statements to the informant should not have been admitted at trial: "By intentionally creating a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the Government violated Henry's Sixth Amendment right to counsel." ( Id. at p. 274.)