Whether the Colorado Supreme Court's expansion of the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule is consistent with this Court's prior rulings

QUESTION PRESENTED Thirty-three years ago, in James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990), this Court ruled that the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule allows the prosecution in a criminal proceeding to introduce illegally obtained evidence to impeach the defendant's own testimony, but not to impeach the testimony of all defense witnesses. Over a vigorous dissent, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution may use as substantive evidence a defendant's statements to rebut the defendant's insanity defense — even if the defendant does not testify. The question presented is: Whether the Colorado Supreme Court’s radical expansion of the narrow impeachment exception this Court adopted in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) and expressly limited in James v. Illinois is inconsistent with the balance of values underlying this Court’s previous applications of the exclusionary rule? 1