Walder v. United States

Decision Date01 February 1954
Docket NumberNo. 121,121
Citation74 S.Ct. 354,347 U.S. 62,98 L.Ed. 503
PartiesWALDER v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Paul A. Porter, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Robert S. Erdahl, for respondent.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

In May 1950, petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for purchasing and possessing one grain of heroin. Claiming that the heroin capsule had been obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, petitioner moved to suppress it. The motion was granted, and shortly thereafter, on the Government's motion, the case against petitioner was dismissed.

In January of 1952, petitioner was again indicted, this time for four other illicit transactions in narcotics. The Government's case consisted principally of the testimony of two drug addicts who claimed to have procured the illicit stuff from petitioner under the direction of federal agents. The only witness for the defense was the defendant himself, petitioner here. He denied any narcotics dealings with the two Government informers and attributed the testimony against him to personal hostility.

Early on his direct examination petitioner testified as follows:

'Q. Now, first, Mr. Walder, before we go further in your testimony, I want to you (sic) tell the Court and jury whether, not referring to these informers in this case, but whether you have ever sold any narcotics to anyone. A. I have never sold any narcotics to anyone in my life.

'Q. Have you ever had any narcotics in your possession, other than what may have been given to you by a physician for an ailment? A. No.

'Q. Now, I will ask you one more thing. Have you ever handed or given any narcotics to anyone as a gift or in any other manner without the receipt of any money or any other compensation? A. I have not.

'Q. Have you ever even acted as, say, have you acted as a conduit for the purpose of handling what you knew to be a narcotic from one person to another? A. No, Sir.'

On cross-examination, in response to a question by Government counsel making reference to this direct testimony, petitioner reiterated his assertion that he had never purchased, sold or possessed any narcotics. Over the defendant's objection, the Government then questioned him about the heroin capsule unlawfully seized from his home in his presence back in February 1950. The defendant stoutly denied that any narcotics were taken from him at that time. 1 The Government then put on the stand one of the officers who had participated in the unlawful search and seizure and also the chemist who had analyzed the heroin capsule there seized. The trial judge admitted this evidence, but carefully charged the jury that it was not to be used to determine whether the defendant had committed the crimes here charged, but solely for the purpose of impeaching the defendant's credibility. The defendant was convicted and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. 201 F.2d 715. The question which divided that court, and the sole issue here, is whether the defendant's assertion on direct examination that he had never possessed any narcotics opened the door, solely for the purpose of attacking the defendant's credibility, to evidence of the heroin unlawfully seized in connection with the earlier proceeding. Because this question presents a novel aspect of the scope of the doctrine of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, we granted certiorari. 345 U.S. 992, 73 S.Ct. 1144.

The Government cannot violate the Fourth Amendment2—in the only way in which the Government can do anything, namely through its agents—and use the fruits of such unlawful conduct to secure a conviction. Weeks v. United States, supra. Nor can the Government make indirect use of such evidence for its case, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319, or support a conviction on evidence obtained through leads from the unlawfully obtained evidence, cf. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307. All these methods are outlawed, and convictions obtained by means of them are invalidated, because they encourage the kind of society that is obnoxious to free men.

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 would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment.

Take the present...

To continue reading

Request your trial
763 cases
  • People v. Markham
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 1986
    ...They throw great light on each other."].) Harris v. New York, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, relied on Walder v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503, analogizing Walder 's application of the exclusionary rule in search cases to Harris' confession case. In Berkem......
  • People v. Disbrow
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1976
    ...be used before the court but that it shall not be used at all.'' (269 U.S. at p. 35, 46 S.Ct. at p. 7.) In Walder v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503, a decision relied on in Harris, a limited exception to the Agnello rule was devised. Walder was charged in 1952 ......
  • People v. May
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1988
    ...conduct. For example, Harris v. New York, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 223-224 [91 S.Ct. 643, 644-645], relie[d] on Walder v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 62 [74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503], a case involving the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rules, to permit impeachment with evidence seized in violat......
  • People v. May
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1987
    ...conduct. For example, Harris v. New York, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 222-224, 91 S.Ct. 643, 644-645, relies on Walder v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503, a case involving the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rules, to permit impeachment with evidence seized in violation ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 books & journal articles
  • Fusion Centers and the Fourth Amendment: Application of the Exclusionary Rule in the Post-9/11 Age of Information Sharing
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 38-4, July 2010
    • July 1, 2010
    ...and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search-and-Seizure Cases , 83 COLUM. L. REV. 1365, 1389 (1983). 157 Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 65 (1954). 158 381 U.S. 618 (1965). 159 Id. at 636–37. This ruling further shows the Court’s rejection of the judicial integrity rationale for the......
  • Trial proceedings and motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...using the accused’s testimony at a hearing on a preliminary matter to impeach the accused at trial. See Walder v. United States , 347 U.S. 62 (1954) (defense “opened the door” to grounds for impeachment of the accused during its line of questioning on direct examination); Harris v. New York......
  • The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" doctrine.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 100 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...evidence to impeach a defendant who had specifically testified that he had not possessed the suppressed item. Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62 (343) James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990). (344) INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984). (345) See 1 JOSHUA DRESSLER & ALAN C. MICHAE......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Objections
    • May 3, 2022
    ...Similarly, a defendant’s testimony may be impeached by evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Walder v. United States , 347 U.S. 62, 74 S. Ct. 354 (1954). Guide to New York Evidence, NYCourts.Gov, https://nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/6-WITNESSES/6.14_Impeachment_Improper_Ev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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