Missouri V. Seibert: Two-Stepping towards the Apocalypse

By Weiss, Stewart J. | Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Spring 2005 | Go to article overview

Missouri V. Seibert: Two-Stepping towards the Apocalypse


Weiss, Stewart J., Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology


Missouri v. Seibert, 124 S. Ct. 2601 (2004)

I. INTRODUCTION

In Missouri v. Seibert, the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer's use of the "question first" (a.k.a. "two-step") interrogation technique rendered the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona (1) ineffective and that the resulting statement must be held inadmissible at trial. (2) The Court affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's decision that this practice, which involves withholding the Miranda warnings until a suspect has already given a statement and then prompting the suspect to repeat the unwarned statement, was wrongly used in Patricia Seibert's post-arrest interrogation to defeat the purpose of the Miranda warnings. (3) The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in Oregon v. Elstad which permitted a defendant's confession to be admitted into evidence despite the fact that he had made a prior self-incriminating statement before receiving his Miranda warnings. (4) In Seibert, the Court based its decision not on the traditional analysis of whether the respective statements were voluntary or coerced, but rather on whether the Miranda warning, when given midstream, was truly effective. (5) The plurality ruled that a waiver of Miranda rights could be given voluntarily but that the structure of a two-step interrogation could still render that waiver invalid by confusing the suspect as to the "nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them." (6)

The Court did not overrule Elstad, but rather it added a new level of analysis to determine the effectiveness of Miranda warnings given midstream. Although the Court vigorously criticized police who use the "two-step" interrogation technique as an "end-run" around Miranda, it chose not to implement a clear rule barring this technique in all cases. (7)

This note argues that instead of solving the troubling issues which brought this case before the Court, the Seibert opinion added another layer of ungainly analysis to an already abstruse process. The Court left police without a clear rule of conduct and gave lower courts the unenviable task of determining not just whether a suspect's Miranda rights were waived voluntarily but also whether the warnings themselves were effective given the "totality of the confusion" surrounding a custodial interrogation.

II. BACKGROUND: THE EVOLUTION OF MIRANDA'S EXCLUSIONARY RULE

A. MIRANDA AND ITS MANY EXCEPTIONS

Until 1966, the predominant standard for determining whether a defendant's confession could be admitted at trial was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (8) In the decades before Miranda, the Court rested the question of admissibility of confessions on whether it believed the defendant's "will was overborne" during interrogation. (9) To accomplish this inquiry, the Court examined the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding the defendant's interrogation and confession, taking into account not only the conduct of the interrogators but also the impact on the accused. (10) Despite applying this test on a regular basis, (11) the Court struggled to articulate a clear standard for determining when a suspect's will was overborne. In the years leading up to the Miranda decision, the Court acknowledged that an evolving desire for fairness in police procedure had complicated the Court's efforts to articulate a precise due process test for involuntary confessions. (12) Although the Miranda decision eclipsed due process as the governing standard for police interrogations, the "totality of the circumstances" analysis remains the basis of all inquiries into the voluntariness of a challenged confession. (13)

Throughout the decade preceding Miranda, the Court evinced a strong concern that coercive interrogation techniques produced unreliable and untrustworthy confessions. (14) Furthermore, coercive police tactics offended a community's "sense of fair play and decency." (15) These dual concerns culminated in the Court's Miranda decision.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Missouri V. Seibert: Two-Stepping towards the Apocalypse
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.