Bar Exam Rule Statements Practice Test

When a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation, Miranda warnings are needed to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. If those warnings are not given (a Miranda rights violation), the statements obtained are generally not admissible as evidence against the suspect in the government’s case-in-chief. This is the core remedy of the exclusionary rule in this context: suppress the tainted statements to deter coercive police conduct and to preserve constitutional rights. There are narrow limits, though. The statements may sometimes be used to impeach the defendant’s credibility if the defendant testifies, but they cannot be used as substantive evidence to prove guilt. The notion that good faith by police would justify admitting the statements is incorrect here, since Miranda violations aren’t saved by a good-faith exception.