Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Harris v. New York | 401 U.S. 222 (1971)

The exclusionary rule protects criminal defendants by prohibiting the government from using unconstitutionally obtained evidence at trial. However, because criminal defendants were abusing this protection by offering perjured testimony contrary to the suppressed evidence, an exception to the rule was created. In Harris versus New York, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the government could introduce evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for impeachment purposes.

In January 1966, Viven Harris was arrested and charged with selling heroin to an undercover police officer. Following his arrest, Harris was questioned by the police and admitted to selling the heroin. At trial, prosecutors didn’t attempt to use Harris’s admissions as evidence and conceded that the statements were unconstitutionally obtained under Miranda versus Arizona. Instead, evidence was introduced about the illegal sales and chemical analysis of the heroin.

At trial, Harris took the stand in his own defense and testified, on direct examination, that he hadn’t sold heroin and that one of the bags sold was actually full of baking soda. On cross-examination, Harris was asked about his statements to the police following his arrest. Harris testified that he couldn’t recall the substance of the statements. The prosecution then read into the record the unconstitutionally obtained statements of Harris for the purpose of impeachment.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the statements could only be used to assess Harris’s credibility, not as evidence of guilt. In closing arguments, both attorneys discussed the substance of the statements Harris made. Subsequently, the jury found Harris guilty of selling heroin.

Harris appealed, and both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals of New York, the state’s highest court, affirmed. The United States Supreme Court then granted cert.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть