When will the defense exclude statements made to probation officer and the psychologists who interviewed her for purposes of the juvenile court fitness hearing?

Before trial, the defense sought to exclude statements Humiston had made to the probation officer and the psychologists who interviewed her for purposes of the juvenile court fitness hearing. Specifically, the defense claimed such evidence was precluded by the holdings in Ramona R. v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 802, 210 Cal.Rptr. 204, 693 P.2d 789 and People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 120 Cal.Rptr. 384, 533 P.2d 1024. The court declined to rule at that time based on the prosecution's representation none of the statements made in connection with the fitness hearing would be introduced in its case-in-chief.