New York Law Review

Tag: Impeachment

  • People v. Harris, 25 N.Y.2d 175 (1969): Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Statements for Impeachment

    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.

  • People v. Irving, 95 N.Y. 541 (1884): Admissibility of Prior Bad Acts to Impeach Defendant’s Credibility

    People v. Irving, 95 N.Y. 541 (1884)

    A defendant who testifies in their own defense is subject to cross-examination on prior bad acts to impeach their credibility, even if those acts are similar to the crime for which they are being tried.

    Summary

    The defendant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine him about prior altercations and assaults. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that a defendant who testifies in their own behalf is subject to the same cross-examination as any other witness, including questions about prior bad acts that may impair their credibility, even if those acts are similar to the charged crime. The extent of such cross-examination is within the trial court’s discretion.

    Facts

    The defendant was indicted for assault with a “knife, pistol, slung-shot, billy and club.” At trial, the defendant testified on his own behalf. During cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned him about other altercations and assaults he had been involved in previously.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted in the trial court and sentenced to state prison. He moved for a new trial, which was denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant, who testified on his own behalf, about prior altercations and assaults.

    Holding

    No, because when a defendant chooses to testify, they subject themselves to the same rules of cross-examination as any other witness, including questioning about prior bad acts to impeach their credibility.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that when a defendant offers themselves as a witness, they take the risk of being questioned about their past conduct to impair their credibility. The court stated, “When a prisoner offers himself as a witness, in his own behalf, he is subject to the same rules upon cross-examination as any other witness. He may be asked questions disclosing his past life and conduct, and thus impairing his credibility. Such questions may tend to show that he has before been guilty of the same crime as that for which he is upon trial; but they are not on that account incompetent.” The court further noted that the extent of such cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the trial court. The court distinguished between introducing evidence of prior crimes as part of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, which is generally prohibited, and using such evidence to impeach the defendant’s credibility when they take the stand. By testifying, the defendant opens the door to inquiry into their character and prior conduct. The court acknowledged that such cross-examination could be prejudicial but emphasized that the defendant made the choice to testify and thus subjected themselves to this risk. The court cited previous cases, including Allen v. Bodine, Fralich v. People, and Real v. People, to support its conclusion that a witness’s credibility can be tested through questions about their past conduct.