Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

HEMPHILL v. NEW YORK 

Opinion of the Court 

need for sensitivity to “ ‘the legitimate demands of the ad-
versarial  system.’ ”    Taylor  v.  Illinois,  484  U. S.  400,  413 
(1988) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225, 241 
(1975);  emphasis  deleted).  This  argument  falls  short  as
well.  Even  as  it  has  recognized  and  reaffirmed  the  vital 
truth-seeking function of a trial, the Court has not allowed
such considerations to override the rights the Constitution 
confers upon criminal defendants.

The State cites a series of cases in which this Court per-
mitted a State to impeach a defendant using evidence that 
would normally be barred from use at trial.  Brief for Re-
spondent 32 (citing Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U. S. 586 (2009); 
Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971); Walder v. United 
States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954)).  None of those cases, however, 
involved  exceptions  to  constitutional  requirements.    Ra-
ther,  in  each  case,  the  Court  considered  the  appropriate 
scope of a prophylactic rule designed to remedy “a violation
that ha[d] already occurred.”  Ventris, 556 U. S., at 593.  For 
example, the Court distinguished violations of the Fourth 
Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches or 
seizures from the prophylactic rule designed to deter viola-
tions  of  that  guarantee  by  excluding  the  fruits  of  such
searches or seizures from trial.  Id., at 590–591.  Because 
the prophylactic exclusionary rule is a “deterrent sanction”
rather than a “substantive guarantee,” the Court applied a
balancing test to allow States to impeach defendants with 
the  fruits  of  prior  Fourth  Amendment  violations,  even
though the rule barred the admission of such fruits in the 
State’s case-in-chief.  Id., at 591 (citing Walder, 347 U. S., 
at 65).

In contrast, the Court has not held that defendants can 
“open the door” to violations of constitutional requirements
merely by making evidence relevant to contradict their de-
fense.  Thus, in New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 458– 
459 (1979), the Court rejected a State’s effort to impeach a