Harrison v. United States

Background

A man was tried for felony murder after the prosecution introduced three confessions said to be his. After those confessions were read at the first trial, he testified and was convicted. The Court of Appeals later held those confessions were illegally obtained and reversed. On retrial the prosecutor did not repeat the confessions but read the defendant’s earlier in-court testimony to the jury over defense objections, and the defendant was convicted again. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that earlier testimony could be used when the confessions that prompted it were unlawful.

Reasoning

The Court began by noting that a defendant can waive the right against self-incrimination by testifying, but asked why he chose to testify. The key question was whether the defendant’s prior testimony was induced by the Government’s wrongful use of his confessions. The Court held that when the prosecution injects unlawfully obtained confessions into a trial, any testimony produced as a result may be “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Once it was shown the confessions had been wrongfully used and the defense had said the defendant would not testify, the Government had the burden to prove the illegal action did not induce the testimony. The Government failed to meet that burden, so the testimony was tainted.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the conviction because the prior testimony was produced by the prosecution’s earlier illegal conduct. The ruling requires prosecutors to show that earlier illegal use of confessions did not cause a defendant to testify before they may use that testimony at a later proceeding. The opinion assumes, without deciding, that the Court of Appeals correctly found the confessions inadmissible.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing the exclusionary rule was stretched too far, that deterrence would be minimal, that the defendant had counsel, and that reversing here unduly handicaps law enforcement.