Harris v. New York, No. 206

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBURGER
Citation401 U.S. 222,28 L.Ed.2d 1,91 S.Ct. 643
PartiesViven HARRIS v. NEW YORK
Decision Date24 February 1971
Docket NumberNo. 206

401 U.S. 222
91 S.Ct. 643
28 L.Ed.2d 1
Viven HARRIS

v.

NEW YORK.

No. 206.
Argued Dec. 17, 1970.
Decided Feb. 24, 1971.

Syllabus

Statement inadmissible against a defendant in the prosecution's case in chief because of lack of the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, may, if its trustworthiness satisfies legal standards, be used for impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of defendant's trial testimony. See Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503. Pp. 223—226.

25 N.Y.2d 175, 303 N.Y.S.2d 71, 250 N.E.2d 349, affirmed.

Joel Martin Aurou, White Plains, N.Y., for petitioner.

James J. Duggan, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.

Sybil H. Landau, New York City, for District Attorney of New York County, amicus curiae.

Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted the writ in this case to consider petitioner's claim that a statement made by him to police under circumstances rendering it inadmissible to establish the prosecution's case in chief under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), may not be used to impeach his credibility.

The State of New York charged petitioner in a two-count indictment with twice selling heroin to an under-

Page 223

cover police officer. At a subsequent jury trial the officer was the State's chief witness, and he testified as to details of the two sales. A second officer verified collateral details of the sales, and a third offered testimony about the chemical analysis of the heroin.

Petitioner took the stand in his own defense. He admitted knowing the undercover police officer but denied a sale on January 4, 1966. He admitted making a sale of contents of a glassine bag to the officer on January 6 but claimed it was baking powder and part of a scheme to defraud the purchaser.

On cross-examination petitioner was asked seriatim whether he had made specified statements to the police immediately following his arrest on January 7—statements that partially contradicted petitioner's direct testimony at trial. In response to the cross-examination, petitioner testified that he could not remember virtually any of the questions or answers recited by the prosecutor. At the request of petitioner's counsel the written statement from which the prosecutor had read questions and answers in his impeaching process was placed in the record for possible use on appeal; the statement was not shown to the jury.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the statements attributted to petitioner by the prosecution could be considered only in passing on petitioner's credibility and not as evidence of guilt. In closing summations both counsel argued the substance of the impeaching statements. The jury then found petitioner guilty on the second count of the indictment.1 The New York Court of Appeals affirmed in a per curiam opinion, 25 N.Y.2d 175, 303 N.Y.S.2d 71, 250 N.E.2d 349 (1969).

At trial the prosecution made no effort in its case in chief to use the statements allegedly made by petitioner,

Page 224

conceding that they were inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The transcript of the interrogation used in the impeachment, but not given to the jury, shows that no warning of a right to appointed counsel was given before questions were put to petitioner when he was taken into custody. Petitioner makes no claim that the statements made to the police were coerced or involuntary.

Some comments in the Miranda opinion can indeed be read as indicating a bar to use of an uncounseled statement for any purpose, but discussion of that issue was not at all necessary to the Court's holding and cannot be regarded as controlling. Miranda barred the prosecution from making its case with statements of an accused made while in custody prior to having or effectively waiving counsel. It does not follow from Miranda that evidence inadmissible against an accused in the prosecution's case in chief is barred for all purposes, provided of course that the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards.

In Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), the Court permitted physical evidence, inadmissible in the case in chief, to be used for impeachment purposes.

'It is one thing to say that the Government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is quite another to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government's possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine (Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652) would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment.

'(T)here is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government's disability to challenge his credibility.' 347 U.S., at 65, 74 S.Ct., at 356.

Page 225

It is true that Walder was impeached as to collateral matters included in his direct examination, whereas petitioner here was impeached as to testimony bearing more directly on the crimes charged. We are not persuaded that there is a difference in principle that warrants a result different from that reached by the Court in Walder. Petitioner's testimony in his own behalf concerning the events of January 7 contrasted sharply with what he told the police shortly after his arrest. The impeachment process here undoubtedly provided valuable aid to the jury in assessing petitioner's credibility, and the benefits of this process should not be lost, in our view, because of the speculative possibility that impermissible police conduct will be encouraged thereby. Assuming that the exclusionary rule has a deterrent effect on proscribed police conduct, sufficient deterrence flows when the evidence in question is made unavailable to the prosecution in its case in chief.

Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. See United States v. Knox, 396 U.S. 77, 90 S.Ct. 363, 24 L.Ed.2d 275 (1969); cf. Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966). Having voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process.2 Had

Page 226

inconsistent statements been made by the accused to some third person, it could hardly be contended that the conflict could not be laid before the jury by way of cross-examination and impeachment.

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. We hold, therefore, that petitioner's credibility was appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting statements.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice BLACK dissents.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice MARSHALL, join, dissenting.

It is conceded that the question-and-answer statement used to impeach petitioner's direct testimony was, under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), constitutionally inadmissible as part of the State's direct case against petitioner. I think that the Constitutional also denied the State the use of the statement on cross-examination to impeach the credibility of petitioner's testimony given in his own defense. The decision in Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), is not, as the Court today holds, dispositive to the contrary. Rather, that case supports my conclusion.

The State's case against Harris depended upon the jury's belief of the testimony of the undercover agent that petitioner 'sold' the officer heroin on January 4 and again on January 6. Petitioner took the stand and flatly denied having sold anything to the officer on January 4. He countered the officer's testimony as to the January 6 sale with testimony that he had sold the officer two glassine bags containing what appeared to be heroin, but that actually the bags contained only baking powder intended to deceive the officer in order to obtain $12.

Page 227

The statement contradicted petitioner's direct testimony as to the events of both days. The statement's version of the events on January 4 was that the officer had used petitioner as a middleman to buy some heroin from a third person with money...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2553 practice notes
  • Miller v. Fenton, No. 83-5530
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 28, 1984
    ...conceded the Miranda violation and sought to use the defendant's confession solely for impeachment, a use permitted by Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). See Mincey, 437 U.S. at 397-98, 98 S.Ct. at 21 All other post-Miranda confession cases decided by the S......
  • U.S. v. Toliver, No. 2:06-cr-00234-PMP-GWF.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • March 27, 2007
    ...but does not preclude the Government from using defendant's statement for impeachment purposes if he testifies. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, ......
  • Illinois v. Gates, No. 81-430
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1982
    ...remedy for Fifth Amendment violations, Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974), and our cases considering whether Fourth Am......
  • United States v. Kenny, No. 71-1886 to 71-1890.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 22, 1972
    ...that the seized evidence could, despite the Government's consent to suppression, be used for impeachment purposes. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 226, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 65, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954). Both now contend that the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2549 cases
  • Miller v. Fenton, No. 83-5530
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 28, 1984
    ...conceded the Miranda violation and sought to use the defendant's confession solely for impeachment, a use permitted by Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). See Mincey, 437 U.S. at 397-98, 98 S.Ct. at 21 All other post-Miranda confession cases decided by the S......
  • U.S. v. Toliver, No. 2:06-cr-00234-PMP-GWF.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • March 27, 2007
    ...but does not preclude the Government from using defendant's statement for impeachment purposes if he testifies. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, ......
  • Illinois v. Gates, No. 81-430
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1982
    ...remedy for Fifth Amendment violations, Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974), and our cases considering whether Fourth Am......
  • United States v. Kenny, No. 71-1886 to 71-1890.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 22, 1972
    ...that the seized evidence could, despite the Government's consent to suppression, be used for impeachment purposes. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 226, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 65, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954). Both now contend that the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • New SCOTUS Decision Protects Police From Civil Liability For Miranda Violations
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • July 5, 2022
    ...be used to impeach a defendant’s testimony, but an involuntary statement in violation of the Fifth Amendment cannot. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224-226 (1971). Similarly, an error in administering Miranda is not “irremediable” in the same way that police infringement of the Fifth Ame......
3 books & journal articles
  • List of Cases Referenced
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 28-1, March 1975
    • March 1, 1975
    ...94 S.Ct. 2416 (1974)Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260 (1973)Hamling v. United States, 94 S.Ct. 2887 (1974) Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973)Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)Jenkins v. Georgia, 94 S.Ct. 2750 (1974) Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (......
  • Civil Liberties Voting Patterns in the Burger Court, 1975-78
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 34-2, June 1981
    • June 1, 1981
    ...See Robert Sherrill, "Injustices ofthe Burger Court," Playboy, April 1979, pp. 110-20, 230-33. 2 Examples include Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971), distinguishing Miranda v. 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 (1971), distinguishing Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (19......
  • FREE-ING CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 Nbr. 6, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 240 (1980); Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603, 607 (1982) (per curiam). (42.) E.g., Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 226 (1971); Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 353-54 (43.) See Reagan v. United States, 157 U.S. 301, 305 (1895); see also Vida B. Johnson, S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT