Missouri v. Seibert (Livi Justis) – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

Patrice Seibert’s 12 year-old son who suffered from cerebral palsy died one night in his sleep at their mobile home in Rolla, Missouri. In fear of being charged with the neglect of her son who had serious bed sores on his body, Seibert conceived a plan to set their home on fire. Being the ever-so-clever criminal mastermind she was, Seibert concluded that setting her mobile home on fire with just her son inside may appear to outsiders that she had left him unattended so she decided that her son and his friend were to set the home on fire while Donald Rector, a mentally ill teenager living with them, was still inside. Five days later, while her son Darian was recovering from the burns he received from setting the fire, Seibert was questioned by Officer Kevin Clinton who took her into custody without providing her Miranda warnings. This moment right here is where Clinton makes a grave mistake. Although he was practicing an interrogation strategy (“question first, then give the Miranda warnings”), Seibert’s defense moved to suppress both pre-warning and post-warning statements made by Seibert.

As INFURIATING as the ruling in this case may be, I completely understand WHY the Court made their decision. By intentionally coercing Seibert into divulging self-incriminating information to the police without providing her her Miranda warnings at first, it is reasonable to believe that she does not know that she possesses the right to NOT speak with the police. In Oregon v. Elstad, the Court concluded that post-Miranda statements are admissible in court while statements made prior to being Mirandized are inadmissible. This is not the case in Seibert’s case because the court concluded that the intentional strategy to mislead Seibert into divulging information without the knowledge of her right to remain silent (etc.) While I find it absolutely heartbreaking and recognize the criminal nature of this offense, I cannot disagree with the Court that the procedural due process was not delivered in this case. We cannot enable police officers to coerce individuals into saying or doing things that they are not legally bound to.

Image result for right to remain silent

Abigail Lord says:

November 6, 2016 at 5:49 pm

This case and ruling is extremely frustrating to read about. This woman is obviously crazy and a threat to the safety of those in her life. I understand the concept of the miranda rights but I don’t necessarily believe with their degree of priority in the courtroom. I shouldn’t be making judgments because I have never been in the situation, but, hypothetically, if I was being arrested I imagine I would assume anything I tell the police could be used against me. I, also, don’t think I would get coerced by police to ever lie because of the grave consequences. The interrogations would definitely scare me and result in telling them information, but not lying. The information one admits to a law official should always be viable. It would be that person’s fault for talking at all because they are given the right to stay silent. Siebert is a dangerous woman who doesn’t deserve to live her life freely. She was not given this break due to remorse or her crime being an accident, but because of the police’s mistake. Additionally, I feel incredibly sorry for Officer Clinton. As a police officer, he strives to help society and must be full of regret regarding this case.

Giulia Frias says:

November 7, 2016 at 3:50 pm

As Abby and Livi have already stated, this was a very frustrating case to read. Patrice Siebert is a horrible woman who deserves to pay for neglecting her handicapped son and for murdering an innocent boy. That being said, she is still entitled to her Miranda rights. I understand why the court made the decision they did, but, I find it somewhat strange that Seibert still repeated her incriminating statements after she was read her rights. I wonder how the situation would be different if she chose not to repeat her statement after she was made aware of the fact that she had the right to remain silent. I believe the court would have reached the same opinion, but possibly with more Justices joining the majority. Personally, I would feel more comfortable with the Court’s decision if this were the case because I find it hard to believe that she didn’t know that talking to the police was a bad idea. Going forward, I think police need to avoid such interrogation strategies.