Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Harris v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureMirandaImpeachmentMirandaimpeachmentprior inconsistent statementscase in chiefcredibility

Facts

New York charged petitioner with two heroin sales to an undercover police officer. At trial, petitioner testified in his own defense, denying one sale and claiming the other involved baking powder rather than heroin. On cross-examination, the prosecutor used specified prior statements petitioner allegedly made to police after arrest that partially contradicted his trial testimony; the prosecution had not used those statements in its case in chief because they were inadmissible under Miranda, and the interrogation transcript showed no warning of a right to appointed counsel. Petitioner did not claim the statements were coerced or involuntary, and the trial judge instructed the jury to consider the statements only on credibility, not as evidence of guilt.

Issue

May a statement obtained under circumstances that make it inadmissible under Miranda in the prosecution's case in chief nevertheless be used to impeach the defendant's credibility when he testifies inconsistently at trial?

Rule

Miranda bars the prosecution from using an accused's custodial statement in its case in chief before counsel is provided or effectively waived, but it does not bar use of that statement for impeachment of the defendant's credibility, so long as the evidence is trustworthy under legal standards. A defendant who testifies may be confronted with prior inconsistent statements, and Miranda does not provide a license to commit perjury free from contradiction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, police arrested Daniel Ortiz for armed robbery and questioned him in custody without advising him that counsel would be appointed if he could not afford one. At trial, the prosecutor did not mention Daniel's statement during the prosecution's case, but after Daniel testified that he had never been near the store, the prosecutor asked whether he had previously told police he waited outside while another man went in.

If Daniel objects that the prior statement was obtained in violation of Miranda, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule permits use of a statement that is inadmissible under Miranda in the prosecution's case in chief to impeach the defendant's credibility when he testifies inconsistently. The Court rejected the argument that Miranda bars such a statement for all purposes. The use is proper so long as the statement is trustworthy under legal standards and there is no claim that it was coerced or involuntary.