What are FOUR limitations on evidentiary exclusion as applied to Miranda violations?
1. Incriminating statements obtained in violation of a suspect's Miranda rights are inadmissible in the prosecutor's case-in-chief testimony on cross but MAY BE used to IMPEACH the defndant's testimony on cross-examination (but NOT the testiony of third party witnesses).
2. Failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does NOT require the suppression of the physical fruits of incriminating statements, provided the statements are voluntary.
3. If a statement is inadmissible due to a Miranda violation, subsequent statements made after obtaining a Miranda waiver ARE admissible, provided the initial non-Mirandized statement was not obtained through the use of inherently coercive police tactics, offensive to due process.
4. If testimonial evidence that should have been excluded as violative of Miranda was improperly admitted at trial and the defendant was convicted, the court may not be required to vacate the guilty verdict. The guilty verdict will stand if the government can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was HARMLESS because the defendant would have been convicted without the tainted evidence. (This rule also applies to physical evidence improperly admitted under the Fourth Amendment.)