Does a defendant forfeit reliance upon Harrison by failing to anticipate in his opening brief on appeal that the Government would argue violations of Miranda were harmless in light of the defendant's testimony?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Court has held that where a defendant’s statements are admitted in the Government’s case-in-chief in violation of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the defendant’s trial-testimony is “the fruit of the poisonous tree,” such that it may not be admitted in a future trial. Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 224 (1968). Here, the Government never faced a retrial because it argued in the direct appeal that any violation of Miranda was harmless in light of the defendant’s own testimony in his defense. Thus, this case presents a procedural question resulting from the holding of Harrison: Does a defendant forfeit reliance upon Harrison by failing to anticipate in his opening brief on appeal that the Government would argue violations of Miranda were harmless in light of the defendant’s testimony?