s not excluded, as the judge did not agree that it was in any way tainted. Elstad was found guilty of first-degree burglary.APPELLATE:Oregon State Court of Appeals: Conviction reversed. The State contended that although the initial statement made by the respondent (prior to having been advised of his rights) should be inadmissible, his written confession should be allowed. The Court of Appeals, however, saw both statements as inadmissible, as there was little time between the two statements, and that was not enough time to "insulate the latter statement from the effect of what went before" "the cat was sufficiently out of the bag to exert a coercive impact on [respondent's] later admissions."The Oregon Supreme Court declined the State's petition for review. The State then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, and certiorari was granted.ISSUE:The question in this case was whether the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that a confession made by a defendant, after having been advised of his Miranda rights and having waived those rights, should be excluded because of another admission made to officers by that defendant before he had been advised of his rights.ARGUMENT:Reasoning:The Court cited the following cases to illustrate and establish precedence for its reasoning:Wong Sun v. United States: Where it was established that evidence and witnesses discovered as the result of search in violation of the Fourth Amendment is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree," and must be excluded. The "fruit" doctrine also applies to confessions. However, Wong Sun also illustrates that precise and proper advisement of Miranda rights serves to cure the condition that rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible: "The warning conveys the relevant information and thereafter the suspect's choice whether to exercise his privilege to remain silent should ordinarily be viewed as an act of free will." (371 U.S. at 486)Brown v Illinoi...
