Missouri v. Seibert

Missouri v. Seibert was a case that focused on Miranda rights. Patrice Seibert had a 12 year old son that died in his sleep. Her son, Jonathan had cerebral palsy and had a bad case of bed sores. Seibert did not want to be charged with child neglect, so she came up with a plan to burn down the house with her son and Donald Rector in the house.

This case specifically focuses on the Miranda rights because Seibert was not read her Miranda rights during the interrogation. The interrogator was well aware that Seibert was not read her rights, because his goal was to seek a confession.  After incriminating evidence was obtained, Officer Clinton turned on a tape recorded and asked Seibert to repeat her previous statements. According to Officer Clinton, two separate interrogations occurred because Seibert was given a twenty minute break in between the pre and post Miranda interrogations.

In a vote breakdown of 5-4, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion. I found it interesting that Justice Souter points out that withholding Miranda rights is a national police training technique. Souter also points out that by withholding Miranda rights the suspect is unaware of their rights, and this could prompt a confession. After the suspect has incriminated himself, they are read their rights and then asked to repeat previous incriminating statements. The issue with this is that the accused will no longer believe that they have rights, especially the right to remain silent. This two step strategy violates Seibert’s Constitutional rights, because evidence used before the reading of the Miranda rights cannot be used to prompt a confession in post warning statements.

Justice O’Connor writes the dissenting opinion, which I find to be very interesting. Justice O’Connor and three other Justices believe that the two step strategy should be re-analyzed. Justice O’Connor believes that the Court should of used the precedent of Oregon v. Elstad. In this case the Court ruled that evidence against Elstad was admissible because Elstad was read his Miranda rights after his incriminating statements. I find this argument to be interesting because by avoiding the reading of Miranda it gives police officers a lot more power during interrogations. This to me is ironic, because the whole point of Miranda is to limit the power of police during the interrogation process. I also find it interesting that police officers are willing to risk a mistrial by trying to avoid a simple part of their job. In my opinion, the cost of not reading the accused their rights outweighs the benefit of getting a confession.