In what situation can statements elicited from a defendant still be used as evidence?

In the context of the question, the correct answer highlights a crucial principle in law enforcement regarding the admissibility of statements made by a defendant. When officers are in a situation where their safety is jeopardized, they may elicit statements from a suspect without first providing Miranda warnings or ensuring the presence of an attorney. This is known as the "public safety exception" to the Miranda rule.

The public safety exception is recognized by courts to allow the police to ask questions in situations where there is an immediate threat to the safety of individuals or the public at large. For example, if an officer believes that a suspect knows the whereabouts of a weapon that could be used to harm others, they may ask questions related to that weapon without violating the suspect's rights, and those statements can be used as evidence.

Other situations listed, such as informing the suspect of their Miranda rights or having an attorney present, directly relate to the fundamental procedural protections designed to ensure a fair trial and prevent coerced confessions. Additionally, formal questioning implies a context where Miranda warnings are applicable, thus limiting the use of statements made without those cautions when there is no imminent danger.