Can a criminal defendant's cross-examination of a witness for the State, designed to mislead the jury, open the door to the introduction of the defendant's voluntary confession when that confession was previously excluded due to an invalid Miranda waiver?

QUESTION PRESENTED Manuel Garcia beat his girlfriend’s two-year-old son to death. He voluntarily confessed to the crime in an interview with police a short time later. However, the trial court ruled that Garcia did not understand the Miranda! warnings when he waived his rights at the beginning of the police interview, so it excluded his confession from the State’s case-in-chief. At trial, Garcia sought to exploit the exclusion of his confession by cross-examining a witness in a manner designed to mislead the jury about the adequacy of the police investigation into the victim’s death. The question presented is: Can a criminal defendant’s cross-examination of a witness for the State, designed to mislead the jury, open the door to the introduction of the defendant’s voluntary confession when that confession was previously excluded due to an invalid Miranda waiver? 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).