Green

MEMORANDUM

Green’s statements after he was given the Miranda warnings were properly admitted. Under Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), “a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet úncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings.” Id. at 318 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 . Green argues the statements should be suppressed under Mi ssouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). Even assuming he can rely on Seibert in light of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), there was no deliberate two-step process here. Green’s waiver of his Miranda rights was also voluntary. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). He was only in the interview room for approximately six hours before he was advised of his rights, and during most of that time he was not being interrogated.

Nor were Green’s admissions coerced. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). Although Green argues that he was psychologically vulnerable to…