Harris v. New York

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Burger, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a defendant's statements, even though made without the obligatory Miranda warnings, were admissible in court to impeach his or her testimony. They cited other cases as legal precedent, specifically a 1954 Supreme Court decision that deemed knowledge of narcotics evidence taken in an illegal search (but not used to convict the person) was permitted to contradict a defendant's testimony in which he asserted that he had never been in possession of drugs. Furthermore, Burger's opinion on Harris v. New York asserted that exposing perjurious statements was a far more grave concern to the American justice system than any unsupported claim that this ruling might encourage police misconduct.

Opponents of the Harris v. New York decision criticized the ruling for its murky language and its reversal of all lower court decisions. They asserted that it gave little incentive for law-enforcement authorities to comply with the Miranda rules--for example, if police officers knew they might obtain some sort of admissible statement, they might delay the moment in which they were compelled to ask the suspect if he wished to contact a lawyer. Criminal-rights advocates also pointed out that the Harris ruling, allowing such questioning, would discourage defendants from taking the stand in their own defense, a tactic that greatly improved their chances for acquittal in a jury trial.