Which statement best describes admissibility of statements obtained in violation of Miranda?

Admissible for impeachment but not for the prosecution's case-in-chief

This item tests how Miranda violations affect evidence use at trial. When police interrogate a suspect in custody and fail to give proper Miranda warnings, statements obtained are not allowed to prove the defendant’s guilt in the prosecution’s case-in-chief. The rule exists to deter coercive police practices and protect the defendant’s rights. Yet there is a limited exception: if the defendant testifies at trial, those unwarned statements may be used to impeach the defendant’s credibility. They cannot be used as substantive proof of guilt, but they can undermine the reliability of the defendant’s own testimony. That’s why the correct description is that such statements are admissible for impeachment but not for the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

Admissible for impeachment

Not admissible

Admissible for the prosecution's case-in-chief

Want more questions?

All options are one-time payments.

$12.99

30 day pass for new members

All the basics to get you started

  • Ad-free experience
  • View your previous attempt history
  • Mobile app access
  • In-depth explanations
  • 30 day premium pass access
$29.99 $92.93 usd

6 month DELUXE pass (most popular)

Everything with the 30 day premium pass FOR 6 MONTHS! & the ultimate digital PDF study guide (BONUS)

  • Everything included in the premium pass
  • $92.93 usd value for $29.99! You save $62.94!
  • + Access to the ultimate digital PDF study guide
  • + 6 months of premium pass access
  • + Priority support
$14.99 $19.99

Ultimate digital PDF study guide

For those that prefer a more traditional form of learning

  • Available for instant download
  • Available offline
  • Hundreds of practice multiple choice questions
  • Comprehensive content
  • Detailed explanations
Image Description
Subscribe

Get the latest from Examzify

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy