Is a voluntary confession obtained in violation of Miranda requirements admissible for impeachment purposes?

A voluntary confession obtained in violation of Miranda requirements can be used for impeachment purposes in a subsequent trial. This principle is rooted in the notion that even if a confession is improperly obtained—meaning that the defendant was not provided the required Miranda warnings before interrogation—it can still be admissible to challenge the credibility of the defendant's testimony if they take the stand at trial.

The key aspects that support this include the distinction between the use of confessions during the prosecution's case-in-chief versus their use for impeachment. While a confession gained in violation of Miranda cannot be used as substantive evidence against the defendant in the prosecution's initial case, it can still serve as a tool to cast doubt on the defendant's statements if they attempt to contradict prior statements on the stand.

This rule is designed to prevent a situation where a defendant might perjure themselves without any consequence, as the confession could rebut any false narrative they present. Therefore, the law acknowledges the importance of truthful testimony in trials while still protecting constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The implications of this principle are significant and underscore the balance between protecting defendants’ rights and maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings.