Although the Court has been careful to point out that illegally obtained statements are not admissible in the prosecution's case in chief, Michigan v. Tucker has done much to erode even that principle. In Tucker, the Court found admissible the testimony of a witness whose identity was learned solely on the basis of a statement obtained from the defendant in violation of the guidelines set forth in Miranda. Despite the Court's statement that it was significant that the interrogation preceded Miranda, and notwithstanding its reiteration of the principle that the defendant's statements would not have been admissible in the prosecution's case in chief, the relative importance of Tucker to post-Miranda fifth amendment safeguards should not be underestimated. This comment will analyze the Tucker opinion and suggest that the Court's unprecedented treatment of the constitutional issues surrounding the Miranda warnings implies that Tucker is a harbinger of things to come.
Case Comment, The Effects of Tucker on the Fruits of Illegally Obtained Statements, 24 Clev. St. L. Rev. 689 (1975)