Document: 401 U.S. 222 91 S.Ct. 643 28 L.Ed.2d 1 Viven HARRISv.NEW YORK. No. 206. Argued Dec. 17, 1970. Decided Feb. 24, 1971. Syllabus Statement inadmissible against a defendant in the prosecution's case chief because of lack procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, may, if its trustworthiness satisfies legal standards, be used for impeachment purposes to attack credibility defendant's trial testimony. See Walder United States, 347 62, 74 354, 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., petitioner. James J. Duggan, respondent. Sybil H. Landau, New York City, District Attorney County, amicus curiae. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. We granted writ this consider petitioner's claim that statement made him police under circumstances rendering it establish 694 (1966), may not impeach his credibility. 2 The State charged petitioner two-count indictment with twice selling heroin an undercover officer. At subsequent jury officer was State's witness, and he testified as details two sales. A second verified collateral sales, third offered testimony about chemical analysis heroin. 3 Petitioner took stand own defense. He admitted knowing but denied sale on January 4, 1966. making contents glassine bag 6 claimed baking powder part scheme defraud purchaser. 4 On cross-examination asked seriatim whether had specified statements immediately following arrest 7—statements partially contradicted direct at trial. In response cross-examination, could remember virtually any questions or answers recited prosecutor. request counsel written from which prosecutor read impeaching process placed record possible use appeal; shown jury. 5 judge instructed attributted prosecution considered only passing evidence guilt. closing summations both argued substance statements. then found guilty count indictment.1 Court Appeals affirmed per curiam opinion, 349 (1969). no effort allegedly petitioner, conceding they were (1966). transcript interrogation impeachment, given jury, shows warning right appointed before put when taken into custody. makes coerced involuntary. 7 Some comments can indeed indicating bar uncounseled purpose, discussion issue all necessary Court's holding cannot regarded controlling. barred accused while custody prior having effectively waiving counsel. It does follow is purposes, provided course standards. 8 503 (1954), permitted physical evidence, chief, purposes. 9 'It one thing say Government make affirmative unlawfully obtained. quite another turn illegal method Government's possession obtained advantage, provide himself shield contradiction untruths. Such extension Weeks doctrine (Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 58 652) would perversion Fourth Amendment. 10 '(T)here hardly justification letting affirmatively resort perjurious reliance disability challenge credibility.' U.S., 65, S.Ct., 356. 11 true impeached matters included examination, whereas here bearing more directly crimes charged. are persuaded there difference principle warrants result different reached Walder. Petitioner's behalf concerning events contrasted sharply what told shortly after arrest. undoubtedly valuable aid assessing credibility, benefits should lost, our view, speculative possibility impermissible conduct will encouraged thereby. Assuming exclusionary rule has deterrent effect proscribed conduct, sufficient deterrence flows question unavailable chief. 12 Every criminal privileged testify defense, refuse do so. But privilege construed include commit perjury. States Knox, 396 77, 90 363, 24 275 (1969); cf. Dennis 855, 1840, 973 Having voluntarily stand, obligation speak truthfully accurately, did than utilize traditional truth-testing devices adversary process.2 Had inconsistent been some person, contended conflict laid way impeachment. 13 perverted license perjury free risk confrontation utterances. hold, therefore, appropriately earlier conflicting 14 Affirmed. 15 BLACK dissents. BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL, join, dissenting. 17 conceded question-and-answer was, constitutionally I think Constitutional also decision not, today holds, dispositive contrary. Rather, supports my conclusion. 18 Harris depended upon jury's belief agent 'sold' again 6. flatly sold anything 4. countered officer's bags containing appeared heroin, actually contained intended deceive order obtain $12. days. statement's version middleman buy person money furnished acted buying received $12 Thus, clear related trial.1 19 where tainted accused's him. crime indicted 1950 purchasing possessing When motion suppress narcotics illegally seized granted, dismissed prosecution. Two years later violation completely unrelated one. Testifying said examination never life possessed narcotics. law enforcement officers home earlier. introduce involved seizure, raided Walder's time there. held facts 'the went beyond mere denial complicity sweeping dealt narcotics,' 356, 652 (1914), extend rebutting although tainted, fact before. careful, however, distinguish situation whose testimony, instant case, 'denial charged,' is, As situation, said: 20 'Of course, Constitution guarantees fullest opportunity meet accusation must deny elements without thereby giving leave rebuttal secured it, therefore available chief.' 21 From recital case' being tried 1952. tended solely interfere freedom contrast, here, very sales alleged indictment, 22 While identify constitutional specifics guarantee 'a * (and permit to) him,' view identified Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination those specifics.2 That extended States. Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 84 1489, 653 (1964). fulfilled guaranteed 'to remain silent unless chooses unfettered exercise will,' id., 8, 1493 (emphasis added). choice one's defense 'unfettered,' since privilege, Griffin California, 380 609, 85 1229, 106 (1965). comment failure take court instruction such silence guilt 'fetters' choice—'(i)t cuts down assertion costly.' Id., 614, 1233. For precisely same reason forbids who takes stand: 'cuts Ibid. 'unfettered' burdened introduced denying him.3 settled proposition we 23 'The protects individual compelled incriminate manner *. (S)tatements merely exculpatory often These incriminating meaningful sense word full warnings effective waiver other statement.' 476—477, 1629 This language disposes distinction between opposed cross-examination.4 'An proof legitimately drawn.' People Kulis, 318, 324, 274 873, 876, 221 541, 543 (1966) (dissenting opinion). objective deterring improper larger safeguarding integrity system. 'essential mainstay' system, 460, self-incrimination, occupied central place jurisprudence Nation's birth. Moreover, 'we historical development groped proper scope governmental power over citizen. All these policies point overriding thought: foundation underlying respect government accord dignity citizens.' values plainly jeopardized exception admission monstrous courts abet law-breaking abiding truth '(n)othing destroy quickly observe laws, worse, disregard charter existence.' Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 659, 81 1684, 1694, 1081 (1961). Thus even extent aimed practices Constitution, fear today's seriously undermine achievement objective. tells freely interrogate incommunicado know temerity goes far toward undoing much progress conforming methods Constitution. dissent. No agreement first count. dropped State. If, example, confessed fully homicide led body victim confession inadmissible, have us allow blandly every disclosed discovered 'fruit' confession, acts. voluntariness would, thesis, totally irrelevant. reject extravagant Compare Killough 114 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 315 F.2d 241 (1962). remembered 7; few answers; 'remember too many answers.' bad memory, addict, stated 'my joints needed drugs.' Three five judges Appellate Division agreed error dimension. Harris, 31 A.D.2d 828, 298 245 However, three play role harmless Chapman 386 18, 87 824, 705 (1967). joined affirming conviction involved. A.D.2d, 830, N.Y.S.2d, 249. disagree subscribe reasoning dissenting judges, 831—832, 250: 'Under outlined above, agree dimension 'harmless reasonable doubt' (Chapman 705). An 'there complained might contributed conviction' (Fahy Connecticut, 375 85, 86—87, 229, 230, 171). burden showing rests who, attempted assume demonstration supra). Surely certainty tip scales him, especially apparently less convincing charge (cf. Anderson Nelson, 390 523, 525, 88 1133, 81). contrary, difficult see how damaged severely which, final analysis, pitted officer's. judgment reversed new granted.' authority 541 Judge Fuld Keating dissented Kulis ground precluded N.Y.2d, 323, 875, N.E.2d, 542. unnecessary me argument overruled narrow admitting matters. Six federal appeals appellate result. Fox, 403 97 (CA 1968); ex rel. Hill Pinto, 394 470 Breedlove Beto, 404 1019 Groshart 392 172 Blair 130 322, 387 (1968); Wheeler 382 998 1967); Barry, 237 Cal.App.2d 154, 46 Cal.Rptr. 727 (1965), cert. denied, 1024, 1382, 464 (1967); Velarde People, 171 Colo. 261, 466 P.2d 919 (1970); Galasso, 217 So.2d 326 (Fla.1968); Luna, 37 Ill.2d 299, 226 586 Franklin State, Md.App. 572, 252 A.2d 487 Wilson, Mich.App. 410, 174 N.W.2d 79 Turnbow, 67 N.M. 241, 354 533 (1960); Catrett, 276 N.C. 86, S.E.2d 398 Brewton, 247 Or. 422 581, 943, 2074, 1328 Commonwealth Padgett, 428 Pa. 209 Spann 448 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Cardwell Commonwealth, Va. 412, 164 699 Gaertner 35 Wis.2d 159, 150 370 Kelly King, 196 525 (Miss.1967). state York. Kimbrough, 109 N.J.Super, 57, 262 Butler, Ohio St.2d 55, 249 818 Grant, 77 Wash.2d 47, 459 639

Category: 0