Fruit of Poisonous Tree &Miranda

Question 1

Oregon v. Elstad

Answer 1

Rule: A suspect can make a statement that is admissible in court after being read his Miranda warnings, even when he previously made an unwarned statement, because the initial failure to read a suspect his Miranda warnings does not taint later voluntary statement
***court found wasn’t a DELIBERATE VIOLATION.

Question 2

Missouri v. Seibert

Answer 2

1. Police intentially violated Miranda; did one line of questioning; then later mirandized and did exact line of questioning over (a practice in Missouri and police already knew info)
2. √deliberate & flagrant
3. Held:Where a subject is initially denied Miranda warnings, confesses, then is read Miranda warnings and re-confesses, the second statement is considered simultaneous and is barred as part of the same invalid statement.

Question 3

general rule

Answer 3

RULE: Not a automatice 2nd one thrown out→look at conduct of police:

1. Intentional violation?
   a. Barred—fruit tree – but can be used in impeachment
2. Due process voluntariness/coercive statement?
   a. Examine subsequent violation-→ if was deliberate, argue coercive and DP get thrown out all together.