ion.However, the officer may reinitiate contact and obtain a valid waiver after a reasonableperiod of time. On the other hand, if a suspect asserts the right to an attorney, questioningmust cease and may only be recommenced if the defendant reinitiates communication withthe officer.Subsequent US Supreme Court decisions have limited the Miranda exclusionaryrule. Five years after Miranda, the Supreme Court decided Harris v. New York. Withonly two of the five justices in the original Miranda majority still on the Court, theSupreme Court held that a statement taken in violation of Miranda could be used toimpeach the credibility of a defendant at trial.The police in Harris failed to advise the defendant of his right to counsel prior tocustodial inter-rogation, which was a violation of Miranda. The prosecution did not usethe statement during the case in chief. However, when the defendant took the stand, hecontradicted his postarrest statement. The Supreme Court approved of the prosecutionusing the post-arrest statement to impeach the defendant during cross-examination,because the Court was not going to allow the defendant to use the Miranda decision as alicense to commit perjury. Interestingly, the Court observed that the defendant made "noclaim that the statements made to the police were coerced or involuntary" (US SuprimeCourt). This statement by the Supreme Court was a signal that the Court was prepared toabandon the position that statements made by a suspect during custodial interrogation arepresumptively involuntary. That presumption was the reason given for requiring Mirandawarnings in the first place.In another case, Oregon v. Haas, the Supreme Court followed the precedent inHarris and ruled that a defendant's statement may be used to impeach the defendant, evenif that statement was taken after the defendant requested an attorney during the custodialinterrogation. The Haas Court distinguished the Miranda presumption of involuntarine...
