Harris v. New York

Supreme Court of United States (1971)

Petitioner/Defendant: Harris; the defendant sold heroin to undercover officers on two different occasions. The defendant testified during trial that he was selling baking powder to the undercover officers in an attempt to defraud them. On cross-examination, the prosecutor used the defendant's statements which he made to the officers after he was arrested which contradicted what defendant was testifying on the stand. The statements that the prosecutor used were otherwise inadmissable because the defendant was not read his Miranda rights before he was questioned. The trial judge did not admit these statements to the jury and he instructed the jury that these statements are not evidence and they should only be used to judge the credibility of the defendant on the stand. The defendant was convicted.

Issue: Can the statements which are otherwise inadmissible under Miranda, be used to impeach the testimony of the defendant?

Holding: Yes

Legal Reasoning: The court stated that the prosecution did not base its case in chief on the defendant's statements. These statements were only used to impeach the defendant's testimony. The court stated that "The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances." The court used Walder v. United States where physical evidence, inadmissible in the case in chief under Miranda, was used for impeachment purposes. So the court ruled that the prosecution can use otherwise inadmissible statements of the defendant for impeachment purposes. Conviction was affirmed.

BACK