Harris v. New York
Harris v. New York is a notable Supreme Court case that examines the interplay between a defendant's constitutional rights and the admissibility of statements made before those rights are properly communicated. The case arose when Vivan Harris was arrested for selling heroin and made incriminating statements without receiving the required Miranda warning, which informs individuals of their rights during an arrest. At his trial, Harris testified in his defense, but the prosecution used his earlier statements to challenge his credibility.
Despite arguments from Harris's counsel that the references to these statements were invalid due to their improper acquisition, the Supreme Court ruled in a close 5-4 decision that such references were permissible. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger indicated that the Miranda ruling did not grant individuals a license to perjure themselves without facing consequences from past inconsistent statements. This decision marked a significant moment in legal interpretation, suggesting that the Miranda protections could be seen as a safeguard rather than an absolute barrier to the use of prior statements, thereby influencing how courts handle similar cases in the future.
Harris v. New York
Date: February 24, 1971
Citation: 401 U.S. 222
Issue: Miranda rights
Significance: The Court held that confessions excluded because of an absence of Miranda warnings could be used to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant who takes the stand to testify.
When Vivan Harris was arrested for selling heroin, he made incriminating statements before he was properly informed of his constitutional rights, as required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966). At trial, Harris testified in his own defense, and the prosecutor impeached his credibility by referring to his statements at the time of arrest. On appeal, his counsel argued that any reference to the improperly obtained evidence was invalid. By a 5-4 vote, however, the Supreme Court disagreed. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger’s opinion for the majority reasoned that the defendant had an obligation to speak truthfully on the witness stand and that the Miranda precedent did not provide a license to use perjury without any “risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances.” The Harris decision was the first case in which the Court began to chip away at the Miranda ruling. It demonstrated that the majority of the justices regarded Miranda as a “prophylactic” device rather than as an integral part of the Fifth Amendment.
