Final answer:
It is generally false that a voluntary statement made after a suspect was initially questioned in violation of Miranda rights is admissible in court. Such a statement can only be admissible if the suspect was properly advised of their Miranda rights and made a knowing waiver of those rights afterwards.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a suspect was arrested and questioned in violation of Miranda, it is generally false that a voluntary statement obtained during a subsequent interrogation session will be admissible at trial. The Miranda v. Arizona decision established the importance of procedural safeguards to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer during custodial interrogations.
According to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, statements stemming from a custodial interrogation are inadmissible if no procedural safeguards are employed. This means suspects must be apprised of their rights to remain silent and to have counsel present.