State v. Atkinson

In this case, the defendant, Darrell Atkinson, seeks to suppress the admissions he made both prior to and subsequent to being given Miranda warnings. The defendant argues that his pre*771warning admission should be suppressed because he was “in custody,” and his postwarning admissions should be suppressed because they were tainted as a result of their temporal proximity to the prior custodial admission that was made without the benefit of Miranda warnings. In other words, the defendant argues that during his illegal interrogation, he let the “cat out of the bag” when he admitted he was at the…