Are statements made during Miranda warnings excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

The correct choice indicates that statements made during Miranda warnings are not excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. This principle holds that certain evidence obtained through illegal means cannot be used in court. However, when it comes to statements made after a suspect has been properly Mirandized, those statements are derived from a legally sound process.

The rationale here is that if law enforcement follows the correct procedure by informing the suspect of their rights, any statements made afterwards are seen as voluntarily given and are admissible in court. This means that the statements are not the "fruit" of any prior illegality that may have occurred; they are instead the result of the suspect's informed decision to speak after being duly advised of their rights.

In essence, even if earlier evidence or inquiries were obtained improperly, a suspect's voluntary statements made after a proper Miranda warning stand independently and thus are not tainted or rendered inadmissible by the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.