Can a court suppress a second statement made by a suspect as a result of an assumed first involuntary confession?

^20. The assumed first involuntary confession here may be contrasted with a situation where the first statement was not coerced in violation of the Fifth Amendment, even though it may have been obtained in technical violation of the Miranda requirements. In those circumstances, the court should suppress the statement given after the Miranda warning only if that statement was not voluntarily made. See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 313 ("a subsequent administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement); Medeiros, 889 F.2d at 824-25 (although defendant's first statements were suppressed for failure to give Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogation, second statement made by defendant was not suppressed because it was voluntary).

^21. Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1991).