 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Harris v. New York 401 U.S. 222 (1971)
Author:- Libby
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the use of a statement to impeach credibility.
PROCEDURE BELOW: The jury found the accused guilty of drug charges, and his conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Certiorari was granted by the S.C.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: Harris (D) was charged with selling heroin to an undercover officer. The police took the stand and testified as to the details of the sales and those details were verified by a another officer with a third officer confirming that the substance sold was heroin. D took the stand and denied making one of the sales but also admitted that the second sale was merely baking powder delivered with an intent to defraud the purchaser. On cross, D was examined as to his statements made to officers immediately upon his arrest. Those statements were inadmissible at trial in that they violated Miranda, but the judge allowed them on the issue of D's credibility. The transcript of D's interrogation by the police was not given to the jury. The jury was given an instruction that the evidence was only to be considered regarding D's credibility and not evidence of any guilt. D was found guilty and appealed.
LEGAL ISSUE: May evidence violative of Miranda be used to impeach a witness at trial?
HOLDING: Evidence violative of Miranda may be used to impeach a witness at trial.
REASONING: (Burger, Chief Justice) Yes. Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense but that does not include the right to commit perjury. The shield provided by Miranda cannot be used as a license to further perjury. Affirmed.
Dissent: (Brennan, J.) The statement was used to impeach D's direct testimony not on collateral matters but on matters directly related to crimes for which D was on trial. D has been denied an unfettered choice between taking the stand and denying what the police officer said knowing that the police can use illegally obtained evidence to impeach his testimony. This goes to undoing the progress made in conforming police methods to the Constitution.
CRITICAL SUMMARY: The jury will not be able to distinguish this fine line being drawn by the court on the impeachment issue. This is a bad decision since the court is basically saying that all confessions are true, even if misbegotten. The government is impinging on D’s right to testify. They are not giving the accused a pretty choice.