that the statements Petitioner provided in Afghanistan were coerced. Having found that Petitioner’s Afghanistan confessions were the product of coercion, the Court must consider the effect of that coercion on Petitioner’s statements at Guantanamo. The Government stresses that the twenty-three reports only detail Petitioner’s statements from Guantanamo. Those statements are reliable, the Government argues, because the circumstances in which they were provided are distinct from the conditions that Petitioner was subject to in Afghanistan. The premise of the Government’s position has merit. In criminal law, previously coerced confessions do not automatically render all subsequent confessions unreliable. See United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 541, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 91 L.Ed. 1654 (1947) (<HOLDING>). Criminal courts consider the “totality of the
holding that a confession obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest is not admissible holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights  ie whether it was involuntary  or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda  holding that a confession obtained under circumstances which preclude its use does not perpetually disable  the confessor from making a usable one after those conditions have been removed holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment holding that the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment must be admissible and usable at trial