1. A defendant has been arraigned on two robbery charges from Jurisdiction #1 and appointed counsel. The suspect remains in-custody pending PX. A detective from Jurisdiction #2 desires to question the same suspect on a separate residential 211/ 245 P.C. occurring in her city. She goes to the county jail, receives a Miranda waiver, and interviews the suspect. He admits to being an involved principal, but did not possess the weapon or pistol whip the victim.

At a suppression hearing, defense counsel objects to the introduction of these statements on the grounds that once an attorney was appointed for the defendant at arraignment, that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applied for any further in-custody, police initiated questioning.

The statement should be?

2. A suspect has been charged in a criminal complaint with soliciting the murder of his business partner. The complaint was filed in Superior Court and an arrest warrant issued in his name. Detectives ask the suspect to come to the station for a voluntary interview. When he arrives, he is given a Beheler Admonition (told that he isn't under arrest and is free to leave, etc.). He agrees to talk to detectives. An incriminating statement is obtained. The suspect is permitted to leave at the end of the interview.

3. A till tap and display case burglary occurs at a jewelry store. The suspect is arrested 15 minutes later, but is sans the fruits of the crime. While handcuffed and in the back of a patrol unit, the suspect is asked about the whereabouts of the stolen property. No Miranda is given. He reflects and replies: "I ditched it in a storm gutter at 6th & Main". Officers check this area and recover the evidence.

Defense counsel wants the evidence resulting from the unMirandized suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree. The stolen property should be?

4. Detectives arrest a suspect for child molesting. Before questioning they decide to ask the suspect about "what happened?" without a Miranda warning so they can establish a story line and make the suspect feel more comfortable in talking to them. Once the "cat is out of the bag", they then will "Mirandize" him and have him repeat the same statement "for the record" to be used in court. Their plan works. The suspect first makes incriminating statements without Miranda, then after a 20 minute break, he is given Miranda, and encouraged to continue to "get this off his chest". The suspect waives Miranda and confesses again.

These statements should be?