Court Opinion

ID: 9628727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:30:30.628399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:10.454590
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The issue is whether the prophylactic purposes of Escobedo① and Neely② will be negated if admissions and confessions obtained by non-compliance with those cases are permitted to be used for impeachment of defendants. I am of the opinion that the inability of the prosecution to use such admissions and confessions in its case in chief for incriminating purposes will be sufficient to obtain compliance with Escobedo and Neely requirements by the police. If this is so there is no valid reason for not permitting the use for impeachment purposes of evidence that everyone concedes is both relevant and truthful.
O’Connell, J., joins in this dissent.

 Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 US 478, 84 S Ct 1758, 12 L ed2d 977 (1964).

 State v. Neely, 239 Or 487, 395 P2d 557, 398 P2d 482 (1965).