Whether a later voluntary statement must be suppressed as the fruits of statement taken in violation of Miranda?

QUESTION PRESENTED The defendant had a conversation with his mother on a jail-house call that referenced a prior confession and his effort to avoid responsibility for committing a murder. The Louisiana Supreme Court suppressed the initial confession taken from the defendant finding the New Orleans Police Department detective “assured him anything he said would stay in the interrogation room and that no one would need to know what he told the detective.” State v. Alexander, 2018-1772, 257 So. 3d 672 (La. 12/3/2018) (Alexander I). The Court then suppressed a second statement the defendant made immediately to his mother finding “the second statement occurred in the very interrogation room in which the detective promised defendant his statements would remain confidential.” State v. Alexander, 2019-01664 (La. 12/20/19), 285 So. 3d 1091 (Alexander IT). As a result of these prior Miranda violations, the Court of Appeals suppressed the jail-house conversation between the defendant and his mother. State v. Alexander, 2021-K-0304 (La. App. 4th Cir. 07/15/2021), __ So. 3d __ writ denied State v. Alexander, 2021-01113 (La. 8/9/21) (Alexander III) (Weimer, C.J., Crain, & McCallum, J.J., would grant). While this Court has held that the failure to give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of physical fruits of suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements, the Circuit Courts of Appeal are split on the question of whether a violation of Miranda requires suppression of subsequent voluntary statements based upon a prior Miranda violation. The Louisiana Court of Appeal did not distinguish between a statement taken in violation of Miranda and a statement that was coerced. This gives rise to the following question: Whether a later voluntary statement must be suppressed as the fruits of statement taken in violation of Miranda? i