> even though the prosecution could not put such an admission before the court
Can anyone explain "though it could be used to impeach him should he take the witness stand" from the article? Sounds like this pre-trial statement could effectively constrain his options during the trial, so it's not like it's perfectly safe or inconsequential for him to have said this pre-trial.
Yes, your pre-trial statements definitely constrain your options during the trial. Your pre-trial statements guide how your opponent prepares and presents the case against you. You don't get to suddenly shift your ground halfway through the trial because you don't like the way that your first approach panned out.
Oh it definitely constrains his options. But remember you have a constitutional protection from self-incrimination, so as defendant you don't have to take the stand at all and the jury (well, the trier-of-fact which is usually a jury) is not allowed to infer anything from your unwillingness to testify. Not being able to to protest your ignorance is the price you pay for the court witholding inadmissible evidence from the scrutiny of the jury.
Can anyone explain "though it could be used to impeach him should he take the witness stand" from the article? Sounds like this pre-trial statement could effectively constrain his options during the trial, so it's not like it's perfectly safe or inconsequential for him to have said this pre-trial.