# Harrison v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 219

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423780

## Case

- **Full name:** Harrison v. United States
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 10, 1968
- **Citations:** 392 U.S. 219; 88 S. Ct. 2008; 20 L. Ed. 2d 1047; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1349
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Black
- **Judges:** Stewart, Black, Harlan, White
- **Cited by:** 657 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled — as noted by a later court — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 4
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423780

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a defendant who chooses to testify waives his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination with respect to the testimony he gives, and that waiver is no less effective or complete because the defendant may have been motivated to take the witness stand in the fi…
- holding that defendant who chooses to testify waives privilege against compulsory self-incrimination with respect to the testimony and that waiver no less effective or complete because defendant motivated to take witness stand in first place only by reason of strength of lawfu…
- observing that “[a] defendant who chooses to testify waives [her] privilege against compulsory self-incrimination . . . , [even though] the defendant may have been motivated to take the witness stand in the first place only by reason of the strength of the lawful evidence addu…
- observing that “[a] defendant who chooses to testify waives his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination . . . , [even though] the defendant may 31 have been motivated to take the witness stand in the first place only by reason of the strength of the lawful evidence add…
- noting that because Harrison apparently took the stand “to overcome the impact of confessions illegally obtained and hence improperly introduced, then his testimony was tainted by the same illegality that rendered- the confessions themselves inadmissible”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Black,
dissenting.
It seems to me that the Court in this case carries the Court-made doctrine of excluding evidence that is “fruit of the poisonous tree” to a wholly illogical and completely unreasonable extent. For this and many of the reasons suggested by my Brother White’s dissent, I agree that holdings like this make it far more difficult to protect society “against those who have made it impossible to live today in safety.” I would affirm this conviction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423780. Public record. Not legal advice.