I agree with MOST of what you say...........
"The issue is not whether a particular type of testimony is considered admissible. The issue if that of the consideration itself. The point I made is that the Miranda ruling has changed that consideration in the wrong direction. It has done so by placing an element of volunteerism upon an involuntary act."
Yes, but a suspect CAN freely volunteer testimony AFTER Miranda. That is not compelled testimony (1. Why didn't he just keep his mouth shut? 2. Notice I said freely given.)
"I am not saying that any confession made after Miranda warning is compelled. Neither am I saying that any confession made before a Miranda warning is invalid. The only thing I am saying is that when a question is raised about the validity of a confession that the fact, of whether or not a Miranda warning was given, has absolutely nothing to do with the determination. This is so because a claim of involuntarily action is outside the scope of the voluntary nature of the Miranda warning."
OK, if the claim is being made that the testimony being offered was obtained from compulsion (as I stated many posts age, if the LEO is willing to beat a confession from a suspect then the Miranda rights, although given, really don't mean much). (But that LEO puts his badge, financial future, and freedom on the line. Judges really don't like perjury.)
"However, this is not what happens in today’s courts. When someone claims to have been compelled, the first thing the court asks is if a Miranda warning was given! The first thing cops claim is that the accused knew his rights. Yeah right! Like knowing my rights will somehow save me from being forced to speak! It is the very nature of compelled testimony to be involuntary. That’s why it’s called “compelled.†The issue of Miranda has no place in a claim of compelled testimony." YES
Right, but now it's time for the suspect, or his attorney, to say: This LEO read me my rights so I could understand them, and then abused my right to remain silent by FORCING me to speak (using one of the ILLEGAL means we discussed above). If the judge is on the ball, it's time for a Huntley hearing on the evidence. Whoever loses is in big trouble. Your earlier posts seemed to imply that ANY testimony given after Miranda must have been compelled, but now that you have fine-tuned your argument it takes on a different tone. It also points up 2 things: 1, The suspect, or his attorney, had better speak up at arraignment and claim that any testimony was compelled and therefore is NOW inadmissable. This happens a lot: especially if the attorney showed up after the interrogation, he will claim that his client was not advised of his rights, didn't understand them, and did not have benefit of counsel (even though the waiver states differently). Who should the judge believe (especially if it's not the first time he has seen this tactic)? Time for a hearing? It's kind of like the speeding trial: Your honor, I may have exceeded the speed limit but I was doing only 59 MPH, not the 75 MPH that this officer states. Who should the judge believe? Is the LEO "testilieing?" I'm glad I'm not a judge, or a suspect.