In the case of Oregon v. Hass, 1974, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's testimony at trial could be impeached with statements made after being given Miranda warnings and choosing to speak without an attorney present. The defendant in this case was arrested for burglary and informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona but chose to make incriminating statements anyway. At trial, he testified differently from his previous statement which led prosecutors to use his prior inconsistent remarks for impeachment purposes - a move challenged by the defense as violating their client's Fifth Amendment right against self-incincrimination since he had requested counsel before speaking initially. However, the court disagreed stating that while suspects have protection from police coercion through Miranda rights; if they voluntarily choose to speak those protections do not extend into shielding them from their own perjury or false statements during trial proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon v. Hass, Justice William O. Douglas argued that a defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment should not be compromised even if they voluntarily speak after being read their Miranda rights and choosing to have an attorney present. He believed that once a suspect requests legal counsel during interrogation, any subsequent statements made without an attorney present are inherently coerced and therefore inadmissible as evidence in court. The majority ruling allowed such statements to be used for impeachment purposes on cross-examination, but Douglas contended this was inconsistent with previous rulings which aimed at discouraging police from ignoring or circumventing suspects' constitutional rights. He feared it would encourage law enforcement officers to continue questioning suspects unlawfully in hopes of obtaining potentially incriminating information.