can’t use Walder to keep out 3rd party alibi testimony. This is too much deterrence for D
case at trial. Majority didn’t want exclusionary rule impeachment evidence to be used as a sword to keep D from putting on a defense. Exclusionary rule is supposed to be a shield.
o    Impeachment exception doesn’t apply when D doesn’t testify but Prosecutors seeks to impeach testimony of D’s only with a third party
o    it is too much removed from D testifying and it effectively keeps D from putting on any case in defense
where you have made an illegal confession, the taint is usually stronger
-
“cat out of the bag doctrine” o    where one makes an illegal statement, it is very difficult to break the taint from that
illegal statement o    generally there needs to be a break in the stream of events to remove the taint from the
new statement