People v. Harris, 25 N.Y.2d 175 (1969)

An illegally obtained statement, inadmissible as evidence in the prosecution’s direct case, may be admissible to impeach a defendant’s credibility if the defendant testifies in their own defense and the statement contradicts that testimony.

Summary

Harris was convicted of manslaughter. Prior to arrest, he made incriminating statements to police during a general inquiry. After arrest, he requested a lawyer, but police took a statement before counsel arrived. This statement was not used in the prosecution’s direct case but was used to impeach Harris’s credibility when he testified. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the statement was inadmissible in the direct case due to the violation of Harris’s right to counsel, it was permissible to impeach his credibility because a defendant cannot use illegally obtained evidence as a shield against contradiction of their untruths.

Facts

1. The victim’s body was found in a house.
2. Police conducted a general inquiry, asking residents about facts related to the crime.
3. Before arrest, Harris made admissions and displayed physical evidence in his apartment that linked him to the crime.
4. After arrest, Harris requested an attorney.
5. Before Harris’s attorney arrived, an assistant district attorney took a statement from him.
6. This statement was not used in the prosecution’s direct case.
7. Harris testified in his own defense.
8. The prosecution used the statement to impeach Harris’s credibility after he testified inconsistently with it.

Procedural History

1. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree.
2. Defendant appealed the conviction, arguing the statement taken after he requested counsel was improperly admitted.
3. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a statement obtained in violation of a defendant’s right to counsel, and therefore inadmissible in the prosecution’s direct case, is admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility when the defendant testifies in their own defense.

Holding

1. Yes, because a defendant cannot use the illegality of how the government obtained evidence to provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to secure a conviction in the prosecution’s direct case, it can be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility if the defendant takes the stand and testifies inconsistently with the prior statement. The court relied on Walder v. United States, quoting Justice Frankfurter, stating the prosecution cannot “use the fruits of such unlawful conduct to secure a conviction” but “ [i]t is quite another [thing] to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which evidence in the G-overnment’s possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine [Weeks v. United States] would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment.” The court distinguished between using illegally obtained evidence to prove guilt and using it to prevent the defendant from committing perjury. By taking the stand, the defendant puts his credibility at issue, and the prosecution is entitled to challenge that credibility with otherwise inadmissible evidence. The court emphasized that allowing a defendant to benefit from the illegality by presenting a false narrative would distort the principles of the Fourth Amendment and create an unfair advantage.