In Duran v. Stagner (N.D.Cal. 1985), the defendant testified about what happened during the incident that caused his arrest. He also said he had given a false statement to the police. However, he did not reveal the contents of this statement. As rebuttal to impeach the defendant's trial testimony, the prosecution introduced the unMirandized statement. Thereafter, the trial court gave CALJIC No. 2.03. ( People v. Duran (1983) 140 Cal. App. 3d 485, 493 [189 Cal. Rptr. 595], review den. June 2, 1983, cert. den. Duran v. California (1983) 464 U.S. 991 [104 S. Ct. 481, 78 L. Ed. 2d 679]; Duran v. Stagner, supra, 620 F. Supp. at p. 804.) After the defendant's conviction was affirmed on appeal, he sought a federal writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the court erred in giving CALJIC No. 2.03. The district court agreed. As noted, the prosecution introduced the contents of defendant's statement for impeachment as permitted by Harris v. New York (1971). The district court reasoned that CALJIC No. 2.03 permitted the jury to use the statement for a purpose--drawing an inference of guilt--not authorized by Harris v. New York (1971). ( Duran v. Stagner, supra, 620 F. Supp. at p. 805; see Hinman v. McCarthy, supra, 676 F.2d 343 [cited in Duran]; U.S. v. Quiroz (2d Cir. 1993) 13 F.3d 505.)