With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". breach of the rule established in Edwards is [ ] a technical violation of Miranda, not a Fifth Amendment violation.”). Accordingly, even if we were to accept Howard’s argument that his statement to Polk, including his request to speak to the FBI, was obtained in violation of Edwards, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine would not bar-admission of Howard’s confessions to Agent Battle and Lieutenant Hitch-ins. Only if Howard could show that his statement to Polk was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination and that insufficient time had passed to dissipate the taint, might the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine bar admission of Howard’s subsequent confessions to Agent Battle and Lieutenant Hitch-ins. Cf. Correll, 63 F.3d at 1290 (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o

A: holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights  ie whether it was involuntary  or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda 
B: holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment
C: holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession
D: holding that question is whether defendants will was overborne by police at the time of the confession
A.