United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 222 (1971) |
Two parties involved :
Petitioner
|
Facts of the case
When Harris was arrested he confessed to the police that he was in fact dealing drugs prior to having his rights read to him. During the trial, he stated that he sold the police baking powder but the prosecutor used what he had previously said during his arrest to prove his dishonesty. The court found this to be constitutional ("Oyez"). |
Issues
Due to impeachment purposes, may statements made by a suspect who has not received the Miranda warning be admitted at trial ("Oyez")? |
Holding/Rationale
(Burger, C.J.) Unwarned statements may be used for impeachment purposes at trial. The exclusionary rule that prohibits the prosecution from using unwarned statements to prove its case in chief, can be used to impeach the witness by an in consistent statement. Unwarned statements that are reliable may be used at trial for purposes other than the prosecution’s case in chief. Due to the fact that Harris testimony conflicted with earlier statements made to the police, the earlier conflicting statements were used by the prosecutor and made useful to the jury members tasked with evaluating Harris' credibility ("Oyez"). |
Dissenting opinion
(Brennan, J.) Suspects may fear taking a stand in their own defense if we allowillegally obtained statements to be used for impeachment purposes. The use of unwarned statement for impeachment purposes is forbidden by Miranda. One of the key goals of Miranda, was compromised by the court's ruling ("Oyez"). |