But isn't ANY claim of a violation of civil rights a civil case? I mean, it's not technically a crime to violate somebody's civil rights, it's more like a tort, right? Or is that only when you're suing a government (or agent of a government)?
If so, the question of whether there is a civil liability for violating Miranda outside of a trial setting WOULD have the effect of "immunizing" agents acting on behalf of a local, state or federal government against claims of "coercive interrogation" or any other violation of Miranda as long as they don't use that information at trial.
And another question, if they did use the information obtained by "coercive interrogation" against him in a criminal trial, it wouldn't be a civil case, it would be part of the appeal regarding criminal conviction, right? I.E. the only outcome would be that the conviction was either upheld or overturned, rather than any "damages" or other remedy, right? He (the defendant, I mean) would have to file a separate, civil case to get any damages. Which then goes back to the question of whether they can use a confession obtained "coercively" as a defense in the civil suit. If this case is decided according to the Gov't's argument, they could. ACK! Talk about your Catch-22!