concurring.
I concur. I write separately only to emphasize that in Part III. B. of its opinion the majority quite properly relies upon Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966) only “by analogy.” Miranda does not control with regard to the question of the admissibility, in this joint trial of the defendants, of Waugh’s previous in court testimony during Flowers’ continuance hearing. Miranda dealt with coercive in custody interrogation of a defendant by law enforcement officers. It does not control in situations such as this where the defendant’s statement to be entered into evidence was made under oath in court and while the defendant was protected from all improper coercion by a judicial officer.
Justice Meyer joins in this concurring opinion.