Example: A guy commits a crime; the police arrest him, and he ends up giving them a confession under legitimate questioning by them. Those guys' statements get admitted against them... why not Scott's?
Well, you're right, the prosecution should be able to admit them, if they're relevant. However, even if they're relevant, the court has the discretion to exclude them if their probative value is substantially outweighed by the likelihood that their admission would be unduly time-consuming, would be unduly prejudicial, or would confuse or mislead the jury.
But most of the relevant ones should be admitted.
BTW, have y'all got this case cracked yet? ;-)