State v. Jarnagin, 277 P.3d 535

State v. Jarnagin arises from a pretrial order suppressing evidence in a murder case under ORS 138.060(2) and 138.040.
Officers questioned defendant July 7 at the police station and at the hospital without Miranda warnings.
Defendant later made statements July 7–8; a video reenactment occurred July 8 at his home.
A polygraph examination occurred at the police station on July 8 after a video reenactment and prior statements.
The trial court suppressed the July 7–8 statements as tainted by Miranda violations and suppressed the video reenactment; pre-polygraph statements were admitted and post-polygraph statements were suppressed.
The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding video reenactment suppressed but pre-polygraph statements admissible and post-polygraph statements suppressed; remanded for consistency with these rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the July 8 video reenactment statements a tainted derivative of the July 7 Miranda violation?	State argues video reenactment tainted by prior Miranda violation.	Jarnagin argues reenactment derives from earlier unwarned statements.	Yes; video reenactment is the product of the July 7 Miranda violation and must be suppressed.
Are the July 8 pre-polygraph statements admissible given belated warnings?	State contends belated warnings via consent form cure taint.	Jarnagin contends warnings were ineffective to purge taint.	Yes; belated warnings validly purge taint and pre-polygraph statements are admissible.
Are the July 8 post-polygraph statements admissible given the taint from July 7 and video?	State seeks admission after polygraph despite prior violation.	Jarnagin argues taint persists.	No; post-polygraph statements were suppressed as tainted.
Did the polygraph consent form provide effective Miranda warnings to purge taint?	State: warnings within consent form suffice.	Jarnagin: form may be ambiguous about rights.	Yes; warnings were effective to purge taint and authorize waiver.

State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462 (2010) ( Miranda violation taints subsequent evidence; belated warnings may purge taint under totality of circumstances)
State v. Mendacino, 288 Or. 231 (1979) ( belated warnings and taint analysis in determining derivative taint)
State v. Foster, 288 Or. 649 (1980) ( factors for evaluating whether taint extends to later testimony or evidence)
State v. Moore/Coen, 349 Or. 371 (2010) ( application of taint analysis to testimonial evidence after unwarned interrogation)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) ( warnings after unwarned interrogation; mixed-message rule and belated warnings guidance)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) ( unwarned admission not dispositive; subsequent warnings may render statements admissible)
Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) ( see above)