In States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that incriminating statements made by the defendant to a paid informant while they were confined in the same cellblock were improperly admitted. In that case, government agents contacted a cellmate of the defendant who had also been a paid government informant for over a year and, while telling him not to initiate conversation with the defendant, told him to be alert to anything the defendant said. In deciding that a government agent deliberately elicited incriminating statements from the defendant in violation of the protections of the Sixth Amendment, the court found three factors to be important: (1) the informant was acting under instructions as a paid informant of the government; (2) the agent was ostensibly no more than a fellow inmate of the defendant; (3) the defendant was in custody and under indictment at the time of the statements. Henry, 447 U.S. at 270. The court said: 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.