My understanding is this: once she invokes her Miranda rights, the police can no longer ask her questions without her lawyer present. In this case, she invoked her Miranda rights, so theoretically if the police continued to ask her questions, anything she said would be inadmissible as evidence. However, it's not quite that simple. If, for example, she invoked her Miranda rights and then continued speaking of her own accord with no questions being asked, there is no violation and the statements she made should be admissible. Police will often try to abuse this as well by saying things like, "Okay, I won't ask you any more questions. I just wanted to hear your side of the story." That's not technically a question, although it does encourage a suspect to continue speaking. Based on what I read in Nick's filing from yesterday, it seems that this is exactly what happened to April: she invoked her Miranda rights, the policeman made one of those "technically not a question but fishing for information" statements, and then April continued speaking. So, whether or not April's statements will be admissible in court depends on the exact wording that police officer used when he was speaking with her. Whether what he said was a violation of her Miranda rights could be up for interpretation, and the lawyers will have to argue that back and forth before the judge makes a ruling on it. Since we don't have the body cam footage, we don't know exactly what was said, therefore we don't know if her rights were violated or not.