The Supreme Court took the case of Missouri v. Seibert, on the writ of certiorari to the supreme court of Missouri. The case looks whether custodial interrogations without first giving Miranda warning of the right to remain silent and right to counsel would have produced the same confession. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, Patrice Siebert was found guilty and convicted of second murder of Donald Rector. The confession that was given was before she was read her Miranda warning and then repeated after the warning had been given. Opinions in the case draws on a plurality opinion in which a two-stage test looks at whether the questions without first given Miranda was intentional or unintentional. Patrice Seibert discovered her son Jonathan …show more content…
The questioning of Seibert appeal that the officer's intentional use of an un-Mirandized interrogation to get the initial confession made her later confession inadmissible in court. A couple of issues the court must face are whether repeated states are admissible in court based on custodial interrogation prior to Miranda warning also, The court must decide whether the questioning of Ms. Seibert was coercion in nature and that the officer intentional coerced information out of Ms. Seibert before advising of her Miranda Rights by looking at the case of Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) to understand that circumstance involved in their previous …show more content…
Any statement given can be the determining outcome of any case. It is imperative that any custodial interrogation is given upon certain circumstance dependent on the Miranda warning is it is integral part of the criminal justice system, as we know today. The rationale is also important as it provides protection for the defendants and for police and prosecutors in which is the reason Miranda warning should be invariably given regardless of