4.37 Impeachment of Defendant - Prior Inconsistent Statement Taken in Violation of Miranda You will recall that the defendant, testified during the trial on (name), own behalf. You will also recall that there was evidence that the (his)(her) defendant made before trial. (a statement)(certain statements) (Name) making earlier statement(s). earlier (admitted)(denied) (this)(these) (Name)’s statement(s) brought to your attention only to help you decide if (was)(were) you believe what testified to here in court. If you find that once (name) (name) said something different, then you should decide if what said here in (name) court was true. You must not, however, consider the earlier statement(s) as evidence of the guilt. The government must use other evidence to defendant’s prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. Comment Federal Judicial Center § 42. For variations, et al., supra, See see O’Malley §11.13; Eighth Circuit § 2.17. Normally, prior statements of the defendant are admissible without limitation under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. If the prior defendant’s statement is admitted without limitation, no instruction is necessary. Instruction But see 2.11. However, if a statement is obtained in violation of 384 U.S. Miranda v. Arizona, 436 (1966), or in violation of the Sixth Amendment rights, and the defendant defendant’s successfully moves to suppress it, the statement is not admissible substantively, but may nevertheless be admitted to impeach the defendant if the defendant elects to testify. See 556 U.S. 586 (2009); 401 U.S. 222 (1971). This Kansas v. Ventris, Harris v. New York, instruction should then be used during the concluding instructions to restrict the statement to its limited role. In addition, Instruction 2.26 (Impeachment of Defendant - Prior
4.37 Impeachment of Defendant - Prior Inconsistent Statement Taken in Violation of Miranda You will recall that the defendant, (name), testified during the trial on (his)(her) own behalf. You will also recall that there was evidence that the defendant made (a statement)(certain statements) before trial. (Name) (admitted)(denied) making (this)(these) earlier statement(s). (Name)’s earlier statement(s) (was)(were) brought to your attention only to help you decide if you believe what (name) testified to here in court. If you find that (name) once said something different, then you should decide if what (name) said here in court was true. You must not, however, consider the earlier statement(s) as evidence of the defendant’s guilt. The government must use other evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. Comment See Federal Judicial Center § 42. For variations, see O’Malley et al., supra, §11.13; Eighth Circuit § 2.17. Normally, prior statements of the defendant are admissible without limitation under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. If the defendant’s prior statement is admitted without limitation, no instruction is necessary. But see Instruction 2.11. However, if a statement is obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), or in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, and the defendant successfully moves to suppress it, the statement is not admissible substantively, but may nevertheless be admitted to impeach the defendant if the defendant elects to testify. See Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (2009); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971). This instruction should then be used during the concluding instructions to restrict the statement to its limited role. In addition, Instruction 2.26 (Impeachment of Defendant - Prior
2016%20Chapter%204%20revisions.docx