Oregon V. Hass
420 U.S 714, 43 L. Ed. 2d 570, 95 S. Ct. 1215 (1975)

Facts: After being read his Miranda rights by a state police officer and accepts, he then continues to verbally incriminate his self then asks to call his lawyer. Now the question is can what he said be testified against him or is it admissible under both the 5th and 14th Amendments? In the Moyina Heights area of Klamath Falls, Oregon Hass was charged with burglary in the first degree for two bikes from two different residential garages but only is being charged for one. After giving Hass the warnings being testified on camera he stated that he did take two bicycles but he was not sure about which one Osterholme was talking about but also being stated that he returned one and then the other one was where he had left it ( in the bushes). After everything the courts had ruled that everything Has stated was not admissible. Also Hass admitted to the witness that he did what he did because he needed money. The jury stated the verdict of guilty. Hass then received a sentence of two years’ probation and a $250 fine. The case was reversed saying that Hass’ statements were improperly used to charge his testimony. The court said that in a situation as this one where proper Miranda warnings are used the police then have NOTHING to lose, and could also gain something. Hass suggested that when the state law is more restrictive against prosecution than federal law the court had to power. Oregon courts then found it necessary to attempt to distinguish the case. The case was then brought to the state basis now becoming Harris V. New York. He was then charged with a two-count indictment with twice selling heroin to an undercover cop, then denied it. The trial court instructed the jury that the statements given to Harris could only be used on his credibility and not as evidence of guilt. The jury then returned a verdict of guild. This was conceded that they were inadmissible under Miranda because Harris had not been advised of his rights to appointed counsel. No valid distinction was made in the application of the principles of Harris to that