🫥
Criminal Procedure • 6th Amendment
CRIMPRO#036
Legal Definition
A statement obtained in violation of the right to counsel is admissible to impeach the defendant if he takes the stand.
Plain English Explanation
We'll cover this in Evidence-specific cards, but the basic idea is that the law recognizes it is super bad for police to illegally obtain a statement from a defendant in violation of their 6th Amendment rights. In fact, it is so bad that the law is willing to sacrifice the statement and block it from being allowed as evidence against the defendant, even though such a statement would make the State's job in prosecuting the defendant much easier. However, just because the law doesn't allow illegally obtained statements to be admissible as evidence in court doesn't mean that they can't be used at all.
Specifically, the statement can be used to impeach the defendant if they take the stand during the trial.
Again, we'll cover this more in depth in the Evidence deck, but all you need to know now is that witnesses in a trial can be impeached, which means the opposing side can attack the credibility of the witness to allow the jury to decide whether or not they want to believe what they say. So even if a defendant's statement can't be used as evidence that they committed whatever crime they are being charged with, if the defendant takes the stand during the trial and says something that contradicts something they said in their statement, then the statement can be used not to prove that they committed the crime, but to show that the defendant is a liar and can't be trusted.
Specifically, the statement can be used to impeach the defendant if they take the stand during the trial.
Again, we'll cover this more in depth in the Evidence deck, but all you need to know now is that witnesses in a trial can be impeached, which means the opposing side can attack the credibility of the witness to allow the jury to decide whether or not they want to believe what they say. So even if a defendant's statement can't be used as evidence that they committed whatever crime they are being charged with, if the defendant takes the stand during the trial and says something that contradicts something they said in their statement, then the statement can be used not to prove that they committed the crime, but to show that the defendant is a liar and can't be trusted.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob has been charged with murder and in jail waiting for his trial. Police place Sam, an informant, into Bob's cell to gather information. Sam asks Bob, "So what are you in here for?" Bob responds, "Murder." Sam asks, "Did you do it?" Bob responds, "Yeah, I stabbed a guy." Later during the trial, Bob claims that another man, Carl, actually committed the murder. Prosecutors call Sam to testify that Bob had told him that he was the one who stabbed the victim. Result: Here, because you have a government agent (Sam) attempting to get Bob to give up information about a crime he is being charged with, Bob has a right to have his attorney present. Thus, Sam's questioning violates Bob's 6th Amendment right to counsel, meaning his affirmative statement that he killed someone by stabbing them can not be used as evidence of his guilt during his trial. However, when Bob said something during the trial that contradicted his statements to Sam, Sam's testimony can be used in order to show the Jury that Bob is a liar. Maybe he was lying to Sam, maybe he is lying to the jury. All that matters is that his credibility is impeached, which the jury can then consider in their deliberations.
