State v. Haynes

Docket number
SC 20794
Date

Connecticut Supreme Court declined to depart from precedent, based on federal case law, permitting prosecutors to impeach a defendant’s trial testimony using statements obtained in violation of the defendant’s Miranda right to counsel. A dissent would have rejected the federal approach for purposes of the state constitution, adopting a more nuanced rule that would only allow prosecutors to use such statements that are contradictory, not merely inconsistent.

Opinions, Briefs and other Documents

Sole footer logo

A project of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law