U.S.

Supreme Court
Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)
No. 206
Argued December 17, 1970
Decided February 24, 1971
401 U.S. 222
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Evidence inadmissible for lack of Miranda warnings does not prevent the admission of
the evidence for all purposes if the admission satisfies another legal admission, such as
impeachment.
Facts.
Petitioner Harris was charged with selling in heroin to an undercover officer on two
occasions. Petitioner took the stand in his own defense but denied the offense, and he
claimed he sold the officer two bags of baking powder. On cross-examination the
prosecution used contradicting statements made by Petitioner to police shortly after his
arrest. The contradicting statements were made before Petitioner received his Miranda
warnings.
Issue.
Was the prosecution improperly allowed to use the statements to impeach Petitioners
testimony since the statements were made without Miranda warnings?
Held.
Chief Justice Burger issued the opinion for the United States Supreme Court in holding
that Petitioner was allowed to be impeached using his conflicting statements.
Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so.
But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. Having
voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and
accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing
devices of the adversary process. The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted
into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with
prior inconsistent utterances. We hold, therefore, that petitioner's credibility was
appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting statements.
Dissent.
Justice Black dissented without comment.
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall issued an opinion arguing
that the Courts ruling supports police officers who dont follow the law by not properly
giving Miranda warnings. He notes that police may be encouraged to interrogate without
proper warnings because while the prosecution may not be able to use the statements
in its direct case, it may be allowed to do so if the defendant chooses to testify.

Discussion.
The Court found that a defendant should not be allowed to commit perjury, and if
impeachment evidence is available and admissible for that purpose, then the lack of
Miranda warning should not prevent it. If Petitioners statement had been to a third party
instead of police, there would have been little question as to the admissibility.
1987 Constitution
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot
be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (Miranda Rights)
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the
free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as
well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families.
In the case at bar, since the uncounseled statements (direct testimonies of Harris) were
made before Harris received his Miranda rights, such statements should be
inadmissible as evidence and cannot be used against him in trial. The decision of the
this case contradicts such principle because Chief Justice allowed the use of the
contradicting testimonies against Harris that is why there are dissenting opinions given
by other justices since they are contesting that the statements were illegally obtained by
the prosecution in violation of the Miranda doctrine.