context: Although the agents testified that they did not have time to comply with Miranda, the Court is skeptical that over the course of more than two hours the agents had no time to advise Defendant of his fundamental rights. In short, the agents' failure to give Faulkingham a Miranda warning was negligent, at best. Moreover, considering the nature of the interrogation, the complete lack of any protective device, along with Defendant's impending heroin withdrawal, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant's cooperation was truly the product of his free choice.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: explaining that "[u]nless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice."
citation_a.sentence: See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (explaining that “[u]nless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.”).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 145 F.3d 405, 407
citation_b.parenthetical: explaining that "only confessions procured by coercive official tactics [along with evidence derived from such confessions] should be excluded" and that " '[f]ree choice' is no longer a touchstone"
citation_b.sentence: But see United States v. Byram, 145 F.3d 405, 407 (1st Cir.1998) (explaining that “only confessions procured by coercive official tactics [along with evidence derived from such confessions] should be excluded” and that “ ‘[f]ree choice’ is no longer a touchstone”).