Legal Opinion
State v. Seibert
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided December 10, 2002No. SC 84315PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MICHAEL A. WOLFF, Judge.
The question presented here is whether a law enforcement officer’s intentional violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), in obtaining a statement requires suppression of a second statement, secured after a Miranda warning was given, where the second statement was based on the first. Essential to this inquiry is whether the presumption that the first statement was involuntary carries over to the second statement. In the circumstances here, where the interrogation was nearly continuous, the Court holds that the second statement,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Missouri v. SeibertSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2003
- Antwion Thompson v. D. RunnelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- State v. GlassSupreme Court of Missouri · 2004
- State v. GawSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.