When confronted with a witness with his own dishonesty in an attempt to solve a murder case, what is the effect of confronting the witness with false statements?

It was Stalling's own dishonesty which led to the successive interviews after the falsehoods were discovered. Confronting a witness with his false statements in an attempt to solve a murder is not "coercion." Nor did counsel fail to object to the admission of the identification evidence, as it was the subject of an in limine motion. Further, because Stalling had a failure of recollection at trial, his prior inconsistent statements were admissible as impeachment. (Evid. Code, 1235.) Even statements made by a defendant, obtained in violation of the Miranda are admissible against him as impeachment. (Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 225-226 [91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1].)