Oregon v. Hass

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawMirandaImpeachmentSelf-IncriminationMiranda warningsimpeachmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment

Facts

After Officer Osterholme arrested Hass and gave him full Miranda warnings, Hass admitted taking two bicycles. While being transported, Hass said he would like to telephone his attorney, but the officer told him he could do so when they reached the office; after that, Hass provided information and pointed out where a bicycle was located. The trial court excluded statements made after Hass requested counsel from the prosecution's case in chief, but after Hass testified inconsistently at trial, the prosecution used Osterholme's rebuttal testimony to impeach him. The jury was instructed to consider that testimony only on Hass' credibility, not as proof of guilt.

Issue

When a suspect has received proper Miranda warnings, then asks to telephone a lawyer, and police continue questioning so that the suspect makes inculpatory statements, may those statements be used solely to impeach the suspect's contrary trial testimony? Or are they inadmissible for all purposes under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Rule

Evidence obtained in violation of Miranda, though inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief, is not barred for all purposes. If the defendant testifies inconsistently, the prosecution may use the defendant's prior statements for impeachment, so long as the statements satisfy legal standards of voluntariness and trustworthiness.

🔒

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, Officer Dana Ruiz arrested Leo Martin for warehouse theft, gave full Miranda warnings, and Leo agreed to speak. During transport, Leo said he wanted a lawyer before answering more questions, but Ruiz kept asking about the missing tools, and Leo voluntarily admitted he had hidden them in a drainage ditch. At trial, Leo testified he had never possessed the tools.

If the trial judge excludes Leo's post-request statement from the prosecution's case in chief, may the prosecution later use that statement solely to impeach Leo's contrary testimony?

Explanation. The majority held that a statement obtained after police continue questioning following a suspect's request for counsel is still admissible for impeachment if it is not used in the case in chief and if traditional standards of voluntariness and trustworthiness are satisfied. The Court rejected any distinction based on the fact that proper Miranda warnings had initially been given.