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

• A. Admissible for impeachment but not for the prosecution's case-in-chief
• B. Admissible for impeachment
• C. Not admissible
• D. Admissible for the prosecution's case-in-chief

Answer: (A)

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.