Week 11 Discussion - In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the Court

Question # 00852557 Posted By: wildcraft Updated on: 03/29/2024 11:55 PM Due on: 03/30/2024
Subject Law Topic General Law Tutorials:
Question
Dot Image

Questions

Week 11

Discussion

  1. In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the Court held that giving the Miranda warnings but only after the police obtain an unwarned confession violates the Miranda rule; therefore, statements made after the Miranda warnings are given are not admissible even if these statements repeat those given before the Miranda warnings were read to the suspect. In an earlier case, Oregon v. Elstad, the Court admitted a confession obtained after the police gave the Miranda warnings—even though the suspect had previously made statements before the warnings were given. Discuss the differences between the two cases. Discuss the Court's rationale regarding the decisions. Do you agree with the rationale? Why/why not?
  2. The "harmless error" rule provides that harmless errors during trial in civil or criminal cases do not require a reversal of the judgment by an appellate court. Discuss how the rule is applied including who has the burden of proof. Discuss the consequences of the harmless error rule in the case of Arizona v. Fulminante (1991). Should exceptions be made in some cases in the interest of justice?
Dot Image
Tutorials for this Question
  1. Tutorial # 00848037 Posted By: wildcraft Posted on: 03/29/2024 11:56 PM
    Puchased By: 2
    Tutorial Preview
    The solution of Week 11 Discussion - In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the Court...
    Attachments
    Week_11_Discussion_-_In_Missouri_v__Seibert_(2004),_the_Court.ZIP (18.96 KB)

Great! We have found the solution of this question!

Whatsapp Lisa