Citation network
Harris Vs. New York
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 24, 1971
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Harris v. NewSearch
-
York - 401 U.S. 222 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. NewSearch
-
York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) Harris v. NewSearch
-
a defendant in the prosecution's case in chief because of lack of the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
legal standards, be used for impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of defendant's trial testimony. See Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
him to police under circumstances rendering it inadmissible to establish the prosecution's case in chief under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
allegedly made by petitioner, Page 401 U. S. 224 conceding that they were inadmissible under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
for all purposes, provided of course that the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards. In Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. See United States v. KnoxSearch
-
Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
on this thesis, be totally irrelevant. We reject such an extravagant extension of the Constitution. Compare Killough v. UnitedSearch
-
It is conceded that the question and answer statement used to impeach petitioner's direct testimony was, under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
examination to impeach the credibility of petitioner's testimony given in his own defense. The decision in Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 347 U. S. 65 , the exclusionary rule of Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
in my view, Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Page 401 U. S. 230 That privilege has been extended against the States. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
since that choice is an exercise of the constitutional privilege, Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
People v. KulisSearch
-
of that system, Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
that the State's use of petitioner's illegally obtained statement was an error of constitutional dimension. People v. HarrisSearch
-
that the error did not play a meaningful role in the case, and was therefore harmless under our decision in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
above, I cannot agree that this error of constitutional dimension was 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' ( Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
if 'there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction' ( Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
is harmless rests with the People who, in this case, have not even attempted to assume that demonstration ( Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the same undercover agent whose testimony was apparently less than convincing on the January 4 charge ( cf. Anderson v. NelsonSearch
-
The Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam on the authority of its earlier opinion in People v. KulisSearch
-
Six federal courts of appeals and appellate courts of 14 States have reached the same result. United States v. FoxSearch
-
United States v. PintoSearch
-
Breedlove v. BetoSearch
-
Groshart v. UnitedSearch
-
Blair v. UnitedSearch
-
Wheeler v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. BarrySearch
-
Velarde v. PeopleSearch
-
State v. GalassoSearch
-
People v. LunaSearch
-
Franklin v. StateSearch
-
People v. WilsonSearch
-
State v. TurnbowSearch
-
State v. CatrettSearch
-
State v. BrewtonSearch
-
Ore. 241, 422 P.2d 581, cert. denied, 387 U.S. 943 (1967), Commonwealth v. PadgettSearch
-
Pa. 229, 237 A.2d 209 (1968), Spann v. StateSearch
-
Cardwell v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Gaertner v. StateSearch
-
Kell v. KingSearch
-
So.2d 525 (Miss.1967). Only three state appellate courts have agreed with New York. State v. KimbroughSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial