Interesting -- sounds like a good book. In applying the so-called The "rule against hearsay," hearsay is often defined as something like "an out-of-court statement, offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted therein." As such, we could be talking about an out-of-court statement by the person who is on the stand, or a statement by someone else.

The complication is that there are so many exceptions: "Your honor, I'm offering it not to prove the truth of the matter, but to impeach credibility, as it is a prior, inconsistent statement." Or, "to refresh the witness's recollection." Or "Your honor, it's an exception to the rule against hearsay because it is a declaration against interest" ....or, "an excited utterance" -- or a "fresh recollection recorded" -- etc. Law students go crazy over this stuff, then in actual practice lawyers find it is largely a matter of what the individual judge will let you get away with, that day.

All of that aside, there is, as Rob points out, a real issue of Miranda warnings, even assuming they are not minors. I forget whether Justin was a law student -- there have been unusual cases where statements of a law student were not excluded, despite him not being warned, on the ground that the student fully knew his rights anyway. Of course the same could be said of any habitual criminal, or indeed anyone who watches a lot of TV, but as far as I know only law students or lawyers run that risk.

Jordan rowe was the lawyer. That was Justin's father. But he clearly states that Justin is 22 in that episode. So the boys are definitely not minors.

That aside, I often wonder the same question. I believe the Miranda warning should have been given before the arrest was even made. And Colombo being as smart as he is does a stupid thing by asking that question