State v. Haynes
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.
Related Commentary
Recent State Judicial Opinions Critique Lockstepping
Justices in Connecticut, Texas, and Pennsylvania have called on their courts to embrace independent state constitutional interpretations.