in silent before he described his participation in the burglary." It is not reasonable to interpret Miranda as requiring that mere neglect to Mirandize a suspect, without any concurrent coercion, thereby corrupts any further voluntary, informed statement. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any sort of coercion on the part of the officers.Mr. Elstad contended that because he was unaware of the fact that his initial statement could not be used against him, he did not give a fully informed surrender of his rights. Having let the cat out of the bag, Elstad believed his second statement was compulsory. To this premise the Court responded, "Certainly, in respondent's case, the causal connection between any psychological disadvantage created by his admission and his ultimate decision to cooperate is speculative and attenuated at best. We must conclude that, absent deliberately coercive or improper tactics in obtaining the initial statement, the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion." Conclusion:"We hold today that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings.""The judgement of the Court of Appeals of Oregon is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."ANALYSESCRIME CONTROL:The Oregon Court of Appeals finding, that once Elstad "let the cat out of the bag" his subsequent confession was tainted as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," was a detriment to police efficiency. Police investigations rely upon a variety of informal procedures including voluntary statements of suspects. By finding that a willing, non-coerced admission made prior to Miranda warning could render a later, procedurally-correct, voluntary and signed confession inadmissible, the Appeals Court imposed a barrier to n...
