Harris v. New York
- Decided
- February 24, 1971
- Docket
- 206
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,903 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that Miranda does not foreclose the use of an unwarned statement to impeach a defendant's credibility if the statement was not coerced and given voluntarily — Herrera v. State (2007)
- holding that Miranda does not foreclose the use of an unwarned statement to impeach a defendant’s credibility if the statement was not coerced and given voluntárily — Herrera v. State (2007)
- holding that voluntary statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible on cross-examination for purposes of impeachment — United States v. Eric Kevin Mashburn (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted the writ in this case to consider petitioner’s claim that a statement made by him to police under circumstances rendering it inadmissible to establish the prosecution’s case in chief under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), may not be used to impeach his credibility.
The State of New York charged petitioner in a two-count indictment with twice selling heroin to an under [*223] cover police officer. At a subsequent jury trial the officer was the State’s chief witness, and he testified as to details of the two sales. A second officer verified collateral details of the sales, and a third offered testimony about the chemical analysis of the heroin.
Cite this
Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.