How have the courts treated statements made to the police by appellant in two separate interviews?

Appellant contends the trial court should have suppressed the statements he made to the police because they were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). As explained above, appellant gave two interviews to the police, one outside his house prior to his arrest, and one in jail after waiving his Miranda rights. Appellant contends his initial interview statements were inadmissible because he made them while he was in custody, yet the police did not advise him of his Miranda rights. And he contends his jailhouse statements were inadmissible because they were involuntary and tainted by virtue of the earlier Miranda violation. We uphold the trial court's decision to admit both sets of statements into evidence.

Page 5