What type of statement can legally be admitted as evidence during a trial?

A spontaneous statement made prior to interrogation is legally admissible as evidence during a trial because it falls under the doctrine of spontaneous statements, or excited utterances. These types of statements are made in the heat of the moment and are considered to be more reliable since they are made without reflection or premeditation, thus reflecting the declarant's immediate perceptions and feelings about an event.

In legal terms, spontaneous statements do not violate the Miranda rights or the requirements for admissibility that apply to statements made after an individual has been read their rights because they are not the result of interrogation or police questioning. This means that jurors can consider such statements when weighing the evidence in a case, viewing them as credible accounts influenced by the immediacy of the situation.

In contrast, other statements listed, such as those made after an arrest or those that follow formal interrogation, generally require that the individual has been informed of their rights. A coerced confession is also inadmissible as it raises serious concerns regarding the voluntariness and reliability of the statement given under duress.