about the homicide. It is the entire above-quoted statement that defendant’s counsel moved to suppress. However, the only portion of the statement that the State sought to admit against the defendant was the first sentence: “I’m not going to talk to you now because what I say could put me in jail for a long time.” The transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress indicates that the trial court gave the defense the option of admitting only that second part of the first sentence, or admitting the entire statement, consisting of the two full sentences. After again objecting to the admission of any part of the statement, the defense indicated that if the phrase “because what I say could put me in jail for a long time” was admitted, then the entire stateme c. 49, 660 N.E.2d 240 (1996) (<HOLDING>). We find no merit in the remaining arguments
holding incustody statements which stem from an illegal arrest are not rendered admissible merely because defendant had been given miranda warnings holding that statements given after miranda warnings are admissible even when the arrest that preceded the statements was constitutionally deficient holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible holding that fresh miranda warnings are necessary after right to silence has been invoked holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible