What must happen for confessions obtained after being denied counsel to be admissible in court?

For confessions obtained after an individual has been denied counsel to be admissible in court, they must align with the principles of the inevitable discovery exception. This legal doctrine allows evidence that would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means to be admissible, despite originating from a prior illegal act, such as denying a suspect their right to counsel.

The rationale behind this is that if law enforcement can demonstrate that the evidence would have been obtained through an alternate, lawful route independent of the violation of rights, the confession can still be used in court. This exception aims to balance the enforcement of constitutional rights with the pursuit of justice by ensuring that relevant evidence is not automatically excluded due to procedural missteps if it would have been discovered anyway in a lawful context.

The other options provided do not meet the necessary legal criteria for the admissibility of confessions in this scenario. For instance, simply recording confessions or having them in the presence of a judge does not negate the fundamental issue of the denial of counsel. Similarly, the stipulations regarding law enforcement contact or procedural safeguards do not fit into the framework established by the inevitable discovery doctrine, which specifically addresses the situation where a confession follows an unconstitutional action.