Patrice Seibert Case Study

Patrice Seibert was indicted of arson in relative to a fire that caused a casualty. Seibert’s son suffered from cerebral palsy, and resulting in his death (while sleeping) she dreaded charges of negligence. Missouri police confirmed her participation in scorching the family’s mobile home, thus hiding the cause of her son’s death, and the passing of another mentally-ill young man living with the family. Police then interrogated Seibert depriving her Miranda warning, and she admitted both her participation in arson and purpose to kill the young man during the fire. Following a break, the police then issued the appropriate Miranda warnings to Seibert, and she once more confessed her contribution in arson and murder.

The police officer that took

The Supreme Court was then not capable to reach the necessary popular vote to embrace a clear underlying principle for their decision, but confirmed that the state Supreme Court’s reverse of Seibert’s conviction. The purpose for this is that the Court was unsuccessful to create a common opinion. So with an explanation, the nature of and underlying principles behind the Miranda warning, Justice Souter clarified that the declaration of guilt without former warnings are normally suppressed, while confessions following the Miranda warning and waiver are almost always permissible. This all-purpose guess is likely because Miranda warnings produce an educated choice by suspects, signifying an honest purpose concerning whether or not to speak to police, thus creating an assumption concerning the admissibility. “Justice Souter also pointed out that the Court had reaffirmed Miranda, refusing to return to the prior regime in which statements were evaluated individually for involuntariness, and maintain a clear set of expectations regarding law enforcement behavior” (Missouri v. Seibert,

Seibert case Justice Souter continued to apply the basic assurances and the fundamental logic to the facts within this case. He then argued that in going over a specific mode of behavior for suitability in light of constitutional guarantees, the starting point issue is whether the procedure in question allows the Miranda to function effectively. Justice Souter then determined that within this case, the purpose of the divided questioning is to yield a confession before the perpetrator had been made aware of her rights, and then hope to have her repeat her original testimonial after being issued proper warnings. “Under the Justice Kennedy’s view, officers should be required to take curative steps and ensure that the suspect(s) understood that they were free to refuse making further statements, and that their prior statements were likely inadmissible, possible also requiring a break in time between periods of interrogation” (Missouri v. Seibert, 2004). “Justice O’Connor then suggested that the Court adopt a test that emphasizes in traditional factors for evaluating whether a statement is voluntary, followed by evaluating how the first statement relates to the second, including how closely related they are in time, location and identity of the interrogator” (Missouri v. Seibert, 2004).

In conclusion, the Missouri Supreme Court, failing to reach a popular vote, decided that only the technique at issue here violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights.