Missouri v. Seibert
Following is the case brief for Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004)
Case Summary of Missouri v. Seibert:
- When questioning Patrice Seibert in a murder case, police obtained her confession before giving her Miranda warnings. Then, after a short break, police gave her the warnings and had her repeat her confession. Seibert was ultimately convicted based on the second, post-warning, confession.
- Seibert’s motion to suppress her post-warning confession was denied at the trial and first appellate level. However, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed her conviction because both the pre- and post-warning confessions violated Miranda.
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. The Court determined that when police use the “question-first” technique, the post-warning confession is only admissible if the facts make clear that the suspect reasonably believed he/she had the right not to speak to the police.
Missouri v. Seibert Case Brief
Statement of the Facts:
Patrice Seibert’s 12-year-old son, who had cerebral palsy, died in his sleep. Fearing charges of neglect, she conspired with her other sons to burn their mobile home to make the death look like an accident. As part of the plan, they decided to leave another person who was living with them, a mentally ill teenager named Donald, in the mobile home so authorities would think that the son was supervised at the time of the fire. Donald subsequently died in the fire.
Several days after the incident, police arrested Seibert and brought her to the station house. Without giving her Miranda warnings, police questioned Seibert. She admitted to the crime during questioning. After a 20-minute break, the police gave, and Seibert waived, the Miranda warnings. The police then recorded her statement, which was essentially a recitation of what she had told the police earlier. The police intentionally used the “question-first” strategy on Seibert. Seibert was ultimately charged with the first-degree murder of Donald.
- Prior to trial, Seibert moved to suppress both her pre- and post-warning statements. The trial court suppressed only the pre-warning statements. She was convicted of second-degree murder.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction.
- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed. It found that the post-warning statement should also have been suppressed as a product of the invalid pre-warning statement.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, to settle a conflict between the Circuit Courts of Appeal on the Miranda issue.
Issue and Holding:
Is it a violation of the Miranda rule to intentionally obtain a confession from a suspect before reading him/her Miranda warnings; and then read the warnings, obtain of waiver of rights, and have the suspect repeat the confession in order to use the second confession in court? Yes.
The judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court is affirmed.
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:
Intentionally giving Miranda warnings to a suspect after obtaining an unwarned confession does not comply with Miranda’s constitutional requirements, and the repeated confession after warnings were given must be suppressed.
A plurality of the Court noted that, typically, giving Miranda warnings before interrogation is a virtual ticket to admissibility. The “question-first” technique employed in this case, however, runs counter to the goals of the Miranda ruling. The object of the technique is to render the Miranda warnings ineffective by giving them after a suspect has already confessed. Here, the police purposefully used the question-first technique knowing the psychological power of someone who has already confessed once.
The facts of this case are distinguishable from Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), and therefore require a different outcome. In Elstad, the police officer mistakenly obtained inculpatory statements from the suspect at the suspect’s home at the time of the arrest, and then obtained a post-warning confession much later at the station house. By contrast, the officers in this case intentionally employed the question-first technique and conducted both the pre- and post-warning interrogations in the same setting with only a short break in between.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions:
Concurring Opinion (Kennedy):
The plurality’s finding that the admissibility of the post-warning statement must be based the specific circumstances in the case is too broad. Rather, when police purposely employ the question-first technique, the post-warning statement must be suppressed unless the police take curative measures to ensure the suspect understood the Miranda rights.
Concurring Opinion (Breyer):
A simple rule should be used in question-first cases: Courts should exclude the post-warning statement as illegal fruits of the initial pre-warning interrogation, unless the failure to warn was in good faith.
Dissenting Opinion (O’Connor):
The plurality was correct that (i) the post-warning statement should not be suppressed as poisonous fruits of the pre-warning interrogation, and (ii) the interrogating officer’s subjective intent should not be a focus of the Miranda analysis.
However, the plurality was incorrect in not following the central holding of Elstad — that courts should first determine whether the pre-warning statement was coerced, and then determine whether that coercion carried over into the post-warning statement. Further, Justice Kennedy’s proposed rule in his concurrence relies too heavily on the police officer’s subjective intent.
The most important aspect of Missouri v. Seibert is that it struck down the police’s question-first technique, which was designed to get around Miranda while still appearing to adhere to it.