Harris v. new York

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his decision Harris v. New York , Feb. 24, 1971, File 65-759, Reference: 401 US 222 (1971), the United States Supreme Court found that statements made prior to the Miranda Warning , may not be used as evidence in the strict sense against the accused. However, without violating the “ Miranda v. Arizona "Defendant's rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments are used to shake the credibility of statements made by the defendant in the trial.

facts

The decision was based on Harris's allegation of selling heroin to a New York Police Department plainclothes agent twice. Upon his arrest, the previously uninformed admitted these two sales, triggered by the inquiry of the civil investigator. Due to the lack of instruction, this confession was not used in the process to convict Harris of the crime. However, Harris then stated in the process that the first sale did not take place and that the second he only sold baking powder . The prosecution has now used Harris' original confession to shake the credibility of his statement.

decision

In interpreting the Miranda decision, the court found with 5 to 4 votes that the prohibitions on the use of evidence with regard to statements made without instruction unfold their protective effect with regard to their use as evidence for the actual charge. However, it cannot be assumed that the statements are completely unusable in the entire process. So the rights found in the Miranda decision should not be perverted to use perjury in defense without fear of being confronted with previous statements otherwise. The question of whether this might stimulate abuse by the police takes a back seat to the value of usability to clarify credibility.

criticism

The decision faces considerable criticism. If a - mind you unlawfully made - statement that does not deal with fringe events, but directly with the allegation, may not be used in the same trial to answer the question of the guilt of the accused, but can be used to answer the question of his credibility, one cannot expect that this legal differentiation is in fact retained and that the jury and the court are not impressed by this. In fact, this represents a far-reaching evasion of the rights from the Miranda decision. In addition, there is the tendency, which is expressed in the judgment, that confessions, even if they are unlawfully obtained, are basically simply regarded as true.

Web links