Michigan v. Harvey

Background

A man charged with rape, Tyris Harvey, gave a police statement after his arrest, was arraigned and had a lawyer appointed, and then months later made a second statement during a police-initiated interview. At trial Harvey testified in his own defense with a story different from his second statement. The prosecutor used that second statement to challenge (impeach) parts of his testimony; defense counsel did not object at trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled the statement could not be used even for impeachment because it violated the bright-line rule from Michigan v. Jackson protecting a defendant who has asked for counsel.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether a statement taken in violation of the Jackson protective rule may nonetheless be used to impeach a defendant’s inconsistent trial testimony. The majority relied on prior cases that allow use of unwarned but voluntary statements for impeachment (for example, Harris and Hass) and treated Jackson as a prophylactic rule. The Court held that such a statement may be used to impeach if the statement was voluntary and the State can prove a knowing and voluntary waiver. The Court reversed the state appeals court and sent the case back to let the state courts determine whether a valid waiver existed on the record.

Real world impact

The decision makes it easier for prosecutors to challenge defendants’ trial testimony with earlier police statements taken during police-initiated contacts, unless courts find no knowing, voluntary waiver. It also leaves open further fact-finding on remand: state courts may hold hearings to decide whether a defendant’s waiver was truly voluntary and informed.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens’s dissent warned that using such statements for impeachment undermines the Sixth Amendment right to rely on counsel and raises ethical concerns about police interviewing represented defendants, especially indigent defendants.