head back and opened his mouth, and tears ran down his face. The bizarre scene the officers encountered when they entered Room 204, the outward signs of Appellant’s unconsciousness, and the testimony of record, permit the conclusion that the officers were unable to determine at that time whether Appellant was truly unconscious or merely feigning his condition. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the officers had probable cause for the impermissibly admitted into evidence his recorded, non-Mirandized statements to Nurse Geyer. This court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit a defendant’s non-Mirandized statements under an .2d 315 (1981), rev’d on other grounds, Vickers v. Ricketts, 798 F.2d 369 (9th Cir.1986) (habeas corpus proceeding) (<HOLDING>). Fulfilling the state action requirement is
holding that the prosecution could not admit in its caseinchief statements vickers gave to a psychologist associate employed at the state prison because the employee failed to give miranda warnings to vickers before questioning him holding that statements given after miranda warnings are admissible even when the arrest that preceded the statements was constitutionally deficient holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda 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 a defendants jailhouse statements to a courtappointed psychiatrist could not be used against him in the penalty phase of a murder trial because the psychiatrist failed to give the defendant miranda warnings