Oregon v. Hass
420 U.S. 714 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements made by a suspect in custody after receiving Miranda warnings and invoking their right to an attorney are admissible for the sole purpose of impeaching the suspect's conflicting testimony at trial, provided the statements were made voluntarily.
Facts:
- Bicycles were stolen from two residential garages in Klamath Falls, Oregon.
- Officer Osterholme arrested the respondent, Hass, in connection with the thefts.
- After being placed under arrest, Osterholme provided Hass with the full warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona.
- Hass then admitted to taking two bicycles.
- While being transported in a patrol car, Hass stated that he would like to telephone his attorney.
- Osterholme replied that Hass could call a lawyer "as soon as we got to the office."
- Following this exchange, Hass proceeded to provide incriminating information, pointing out the location of a stolen bicycle and the two houses from which the bicycles were taken.
- At trial, Hass testified that two friends had stolen the bicycles and that he was an unwitting participant, a version of events that contradicted the statements he made to Osterholme.
Procedural Posture:
- Hass was charged with first-degree burglary and tried in an Oregon state trial court.
- The trial court ruled that statements Hass made after requesting counsel were inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief, but could be used to impeach his testimony.
- A jury found Hass guilty.
- Hass, as appellant, appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which reversed the conviction, finding the impeachment use of the statements was improper.
- The State of Oregon, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Oregon, which affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
- The State of Oregon, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of a suspect's incriminating statements, made after receiving proper Miranda warnings and requesting an attorney, for the sole purpose of impeaching their contradictory trial testimony violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. The use of these statements for impeachment does not violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Relying on Harris v. New York, the Court held that the shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license for a defendant to commit perjury. The Court reasoned that the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule—deterring police misconduct—is sufficiently served by making illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief. Allowing its use for impeachment, however, provides valuable aid to the jury in assessing a defendant's credibility and serves the ultimate goal of searching for the truth. The Court found no meaningful distinction between using statements obtained after defective Miranda warnings (as in Harris) and using statements obtained after ignoring a suspect's request for counsel.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. This decision fundamentally erodes the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The dissent argues that this ruling extends Harris and undermines Miranda by creating a perverse incentive for police to violate a suspect's rights. Once a suspect invokes the right to an attorney, police now have little to lose and potentially much to gain—valuable impeachment material—by continuing the interrogation in direct violation of Miranda's command that all questioning must cease. This practice sanctions illegal police conduct and burdens a defendant's choice to testify in their own defense.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall
This dissent does not directly answer the issue on the merits but argues the Court should not have heard the case. The judgment of the Oregon Supreme Court may have rested on adequate and independent state grounds, specifically the self-incrimination clause of the Oregon Constitution. By reviewing a case without certainty that the decision was based solely on federal law, the Court risks issuing a purely advisory opinion. The proper course would have been to dismiss the writ of certiorari or remand the case to the Oregon court for clarification on the basis of its decision.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the impeachment exception to the Miranda rule established in Harris v. New York. While Harris dealt with statements made after defective warnings, Hass applies the exception to situations where police give proper warnings but then violate a suspect's explicit invocation of the right to counsel. This decision weakens Miranda's deterrent effect by giving police an incentive to continue questioning suspects who have asked for a lawyer, knowing any statements obtained can be used to destroy the suspect's credibility if they testify. The ruling creates a difficult tactical choice for defendants whose Miranda rights have been violated, forcing them to weigh the benefits of testifying against the risk of being impeached with their own illegally obtained statements.
Unlock the full brief for Oregon v. Hass