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

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?