Whether a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

QUESTIONS PRESENTED L. During a four-hour custodial interrogation, the interrogating officer never advised Vongphakdy of his Miranda rights. The government disputed neither that the interrogation violated Miranda nor that the evidence obtained was involuntary and unreliable. Did the Fourth Circuit’s opinion concluding that Vongphakdy’s statements were non-testimonial and outside the reach of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination conflict with this Court’s decisions? I. The government did not argue on appeal that any error in admitting evidence of Vongphakdy’s custodial statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that any error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the government made no attempt to establish harmlessness?