Citation network
United States Vs. Havens
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 1980
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
-
U.S. 620 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HavensSearch
-
U.S. 620 (1980) United States v. HavensSearch
-
albeit by evidence that has been illegally obtained and is inadmissible as substantive evidence of guilt. Cf. Harris v. NewSearch
-
should be considered only for impeaching Havens' credibility. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 269 U. S. 20 (1925), and Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
of his direct examination. 592 F.2d 848 (CA5 1979). We reverse. Page 446 U. S. 624 II In Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 269 U. S. 35 . The Court also said, quoting from Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
The latter statement has been rejected in our later cases, however, and Agnello otherwise limited. In Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
to impeach the direct testimony of the defendant. This Court approved, saying that it would pervert the rule of Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914) to hold otherwise. Similarly, in Harris v. NewSearch
-
York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), and Oregon v. HassSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 714 (1975), statements taken in violation of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. at 401 U. S. 226 . See also Oregon v. HassSearch
-
unavailable to the government for otherwise proper impeachment would contribute substantially in this respect. Harris v. NewSearch
-
York, supra at 401 U. S. 225 . Oregon v. HassSearch
-
controls this one. There is no gainsaying that arriving at the truth is a fundamental goal of our legal system. Oregon v. HassSearch
-
or suffer the consequences. This is true even though a defendant is compelled to testify against his will. Bryson v. UnitedSearch
-
when he is cross-examined. His privilege against self-incrimination does not shield him from proper questioning. Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
would unquestionably be subject to a perjury prosecution if he knowingly lies on cross-examination. Cf. United States v. ApfelbaumSearch
-
Bryson v. UnitedSearch
-
accused. I The question before us is not of first impression. The identical issue was confronted in Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
rebut a defendant's response to a matter first raised during the Government's cross-examination. Subsequently, Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 347 U. S. 66 . The Court's recent decisions have left Agnello undisturbed. Harris v. NewSearch
-
allowed the government to use inadmissible uncounseled statements to impeach direct examination. So, too, Oregon v. HassSearch
-
of its own creation. Specifically, the Court cites Agnello's quotation of language from Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
been prompted by statements of the accused first elicited upon cross-examination. And the case was so read in Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
than a constitutional reflection of the common law evidentiary rule of relevance. Finally, the rationale of Harris v. NewSearch
-
York and Oregon v. HassSearch
-
Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. NewSearch
-
difference with the Court's holding here, which culminates Page 446 U. S. 633 the approach taken in Harris v. NewSearch
-
undercuts the constitutional canon that convictions cannot be procured by governmental lawbreaking. See Harris v. NewSearch
-
Id. at 420 U. S. 724 , quoting Harris v. NewSearch
-
Oregon v. HassSearch
-
Harris v. NewSearch
-
The processes of our judicial system may not be fueled by the illegalities of government authorities. See, e.g., Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Stone v. PowellSearch
-
it is unrealistic to assume that limiting instructions will afford the defendant significant protection. Cf. Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HavensSearch
-
Cf. Harris v. NewSearch
-
Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
and Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
II In Agnello v. UnitedSearch
-
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
In Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
of Weeks v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial