States, 520 U.S. 461, 468, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1994)). We start with the premise that plain error review first requires a finding (or at least an assumption) that an error has occurred. The trial court only commits error by admitting a confession without holding a voluntariness hearing on its own motion if “the evidence clearly reflects a question of voluntariness.” Renteria, 625 F.2d at 1283. Elier does not contend that his purported confession was actually coerced, but instead that the evidence adduced at trial clearly reflected a question of the voluntariness of his waiver of his Miranda rights. A waiver of Miranda rights must be voluntarily made, and a hearing may be required to determine its voluntariness. See Turner v. United States, 387 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). The determination of whether a waiver is
holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda holding that an objection on the basis of failure to give miranda warnings rather than physical or mental coercion does not change the requirement that a jackson v denno hearing be held outside the presence of the jury recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial holding that undercover officers questions posed to defendant in prison need not be preceded by miranda warnings because there was no compulsion or coercion