With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of a co-conspirator’s confession at trial for an impeachment purpose offends the Confrontation Clause. Harvey Street and an accomplice were arrested for burglary and murder. 471 U.S. at 411, 105 S.Ct. 2078. After their arrests, both men confessed to a Sheriff. Id. At trial, Street repudiated his confession and asserted that the Sheriff read him his accomplice’s confession and “directed him to say the same thing.” Id. To rebut Street’s claim that his confession was fabricated, the State had the Sheriff read to the jury the accomplice’s confession, which directly implicated Street. Id. at 411-12, 105 S.Ct. 2078. Before the Sheriff read the accomplice’s statement to the jury, however, “the trial judge twice informed the jury that it was admitted ‘not Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954) (<HOLDING>); cf. Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 347,

A: holding that the admission of unlawfully seized evidence of a crime was admissible if the jury was instructed that the evidence could be considered only in assessing a defendants credibility and not for determining guilt
B: holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt
C: holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt
D: holding all evidence be suppressed traceable to the unlawfully seized
A.