Final answer:
A judge can deem information from a victim impact statement inadmissible if it includes evidence obtained illegally, hearsay, or opinions of unqualified witnesses, which is why the correct answer is '4) All of the above'. Legal considerations like the exclusionary rule, rights against self-incrimination, and evidence relevancy play a role in these decisions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Information can be deemed inadmissible by a judge from a victim impact statement for several reasons. Among these are: 1) Evidence obtained illegally, which highlights the importance of the exclusionary rule excluding evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment; 2) Hearsay, which generally refers to statements not made in the courtroom and not subject to cross-examination, although there are certain exceptions like admissions of guilt or dying declarations; 3) Opinions of witnesses, which can be excluded if the witness is not an expert in the relevant field or if their opinions are deemed irrelevant or biased. Therefore, the correct answer is 4) All of the above.
The content of a victim impact statement must adhere to legal rules that govern what is admissible in court. Judges have the authority to exclude any testimony that undermines the fairness and integrity of the trial. For example, testimonial injustice, such as when testimony is treated as untrustworthy due to the witness's gender, would undermine the legal process. In addition, statements made during custodial interrogation without proper procedural safeguards, as described in Miranda v. Arizona, can also be ruled inadmissible to protect against self-incrimination.