Missouri Vs Seibert Case Analysis

In the case of Missouri vs. Seibert lies many liable facts within the case. Some of the relevant facts is that a woman named Patrice Seibert along with accomplices which includes her son and his friends, sets their mobile home on fire with the dead body of her 12-year-old son along with a mentally ill 17-year-old Donald Rector whom was living in the household, and days after the fire, Seibert was interrogated by a police officer. The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first. Once she had confessed, the officer took a short break from questioning, then preceded to read her, her Miranda rights and resumed questioning after she waived those rights. The officer swayed her to reiterate the confession

In Seiberts case the technique a certain officer by the name of Hanrahn used to pull information from her on the occurrences that happened, was the technique of questioning her without reading her, her Miranda warnings, for about 30 to 40 minutes, and squeezing her arm all the while repeating how Donald was to die in his sleep. After that, he proceeded in giving her a 20-minute break and allowing her to smoke, which something not most murderers would receive after just confessing to a murder, then he read her Miranda warnings and obtained a signed waiver. Officer Hanrahn recommenced questioning, confronting Seibert with her prewarning statements and getting her to reiterate the facts. Seibert moved to stifle both her prewarning and postwarning

What makes the facts of Seibert different from the facts in Elstad is Michael Elstad was arrested for burglary after after a witness contacted the police. Two officers went to his home after receiving a witness tip, as his mother answered the door, she led them to his room where they led him to another room away from his mother so that they could begin questioning him. Elstad was talked to without having his Miranda rights read to him, and the officers got him to state that he was present during the burglary. As he was transported to the police station he was finally read his Miranda rights which are something that should have been done before he was brought to the station and before he confessed to being present during the robbery. As he was standing in court Elstad told the judge that the statement he gave to the officers “let the cat out the bag” and that it tainted the consequent confessions, so the judge ruled the statement “I was there” had to be omitted because he had not been advised of his Miranda rights. When it comes to Seibert the officers used a different technique by actually physically hurting her in order to get information out of her in return, they did, but they also initially withheld her Miranda rights in which she tried to use it against them in court which did not work. Seibert tried to say that because of the technique that was used to