State v. Seibert

Missouri, Respondent, STATE of SEIBERT, Appellant.

Patrice

No. SC 84315. Missouri,

Supreme Court of

En Banc.

Dec. custody. while in Seibert

ments she made at trial. testify not did by the of opinion Appeals, After Court District, granted this Court Southern Mo. jurisdiction. transfer. This Court Const, V, judgment art. section 10. reversed, and the case is the trial court is remanded. Mobile Home Fire

Facts —The Death of Donald Rector in in a home Rolla

Seibert lived mobile victim, her sons. The Donald with five Rector, was on medication for a who Bartholow, Amy Pub- M. Assistant State disorder, also lived with them. mental Defender, Columbia, Appellee. lic for Jonathan, sons, one was Seibert’s seriously handicapped palsy. with cerebral Nixon, General, Atty. (Jay) Jeremiah W. walk, talk himself. could or feed He not Attorney Asst. Mackelprang, Shaun J. 12,1997, in his died February On Jonathan General, for City, Respondent. Jefferson report was afraid to his sleep. Seibert bedsores, had and she was death. He WOLFF, A. Judge. MICHAEL had would believe she afraid authorities question presented here is whether him. neglecting been a law enforcement officer’s vio- intentional Arizona, presence, In two of her teen- lation of Seibert’s dis- (1966), two of their friends aged sons and 16 L.Ed.2d 694 plan a to set the mobile home on requires cussed obtaining suppres- statement, up They Jonathan’s death. fire to cover sion a second secured after present should be decided Donald warning given, was where though it not look as Jona- fire so second based on the first. would statement was had left In her state- than been alone. Essential to this inquiry whether ments, Donald, who admitted that was Seibert presumption the first statement fire, in the supposed in the was die carries died involuntary over the second here, According testimony trial In fire. statement. the circumstances friends, Jeremy, one of son’s Seibert nearly where the was contin- hysterics,” uous, “pretty much crying, the Court the second holds sons statement, during discussion with two clearly inval- product sending statement, suggested and their friends. She sup- first have id should been sons, Shawn, younger her two Patrick pressed. during church the fire. Seibert was Patrice Seibert was convicted of second- fire present when the started. degree role in death of murder Darían, the oldest of Seibert’s intentionally age Donald in a set Rector fire sons, and friend Derrick were to set home Rector resided. the mobile where that Derrick imprisonment. life the fire. Darían testified She was sentenced to hit gas the trailer then appeal, poured the trial court around On Seibert asserts Donald, seizure and having error when it allowed who committed reversible convulsing the floor. Derrick set inculpatory state- the State to introduce fire before Darían was out of the trailer. tape-recorded played interview was to the Darían suffered serious burns to his face. jury at trial. Donald’s dead body was found kneeling Officer Hanrahan testified that he made front of and partially lying on a sofa a conscious decision withhold west bedroom with a penetrating wound hoping get to an guilt. admission of He on the back of his skull. The cause of institute, testified that an from which he death asphyxiation secondary was expo- to has interrogation training, received sure to fire. promoted type interrogation this “nu- Two-Step Interrogation merous and that depart- times” his current February On days five after ment, as well as those he with previ- was fire, the trailer County St. Louis officer ously, all subscribe to training. In the Kevin Clinton woke Seibert at 3:00 a.m. interview, second stage of the Officer Han- She was at a in hospital St. County, Louis began by rahan reminding Seibert

where Darían being was treated for burns. they “talking had been for a little while” Rolla officer Richard Hanrahan arranged fire, about the trailer which occurred on for Officer Clinton to arrest Seibert. Offi- Thus, February he link was able to cer specifically Hanrahan instructed Offi- together the unwarned interview with the cer Clinton not to advise Seibert of her warned interview. Seibert was reminded Miranda rights. of the statements she made during the station,

Once at the Seibert first stage, was which occurred before he gave left in a small interview room for 15 to 20 Seibert a Miranda warning. He also used minutes to “give her a little time to think pre-warning Seibert’s to about the situation.” issuing Without a phrase his questions. For example, con- warning, Officer Hanrahan then following sider the from excerpt the sec- questioned her for 30 to 40 minutes. He stage ond (emphasis the interview add- squeezed ed): her arm and repeated the same statement, “Donald was also to die his Now, Officer Hanrahan: discussion sleep,” throughout much of the interview. us, you you told told us that there was After she an made admission indicating (Here, an understanding about Donald. that she knew Donald was to die his referring he is portion the unwarned sleep, she was a 20-minute break for interview.) cigarette. coffee and a Officer Hanrahan Seibert: Yes. interview,

then resumed the this time us- Hanrahan: place Did that take earlier recorder, ing a tape and advised Seibert of 12,1997]? morning [February rights. signed Seibert waiver form. Seibert: Yes. began

Officer Hanrahan the second Hanrahan: Ok. And what the un- stage of the interview referring to the derstanding about Donald? “Ok, ‘trice, stage:

first talking we’ve been they Seibert: If get could him out of the for a little while about what happened on trailer, him to take out of the trailer. twelfth, Wednesday the haven’t we?” if they Hanrahan: And couldn’t? Then, with occasional reference back to I, Seibert: I thought never even about the first stage, pre-Miranda interview, Of- just it. I figured they would. ficer Hanrahan question continued to Sei- repeated bert. She you didn’t tell me that Trice, statements she had Hanrahan: Miranda. prior made supposed sleep? he was receiving die This the inherent overcoming prerequisite he happen, If that would ‘cause Seibert: medicine, atmo- you on that pressures new Be- sphere.” Id. know.... the Mi- yond protections, these providing it The Prozac? And makes Hanrahan: randa decision progeny serve its supposed him he was to die sleepy. So improper conduct.2 and deter sleep? guide police in his granted Court certiorari Supreme Seibert: Yes. constitutional “give concrete Hanrahan, in an order secure Officer agencies law enforcement guidelines confession, he used information admissible to follow.” and courts inadmissi- gained previous from Seibert’s result, post- As a Seibert’s ble confession. Miranda a give Failure to warning closely were tied to of a not result exclusion warning does lengthy interrogation. the unwarned An unwarned purposes. for all statement Purpose and of Mi- Protections im may be used for custodial statement randa York, v. New peachment. Harris preserve right To the Fifth Amendment 222, 643, 28 L.Ed.2d U.S. 91 S.Ct. against incrimination where an ac- self (1971). may tes prosecution use the subjected to interroga- cused is custodial a witness who was identified timony of tion, heavy which “exacts a toll on individ- in a statement with defendant trades of liberty ual and on the weakness v. warning. Michigan out a Miranda individuals,” Supreme the United States Tucker, 433, 444, 94 417 U.S. Court created now well-known safe- (1974). And, perti 41 L.Ed.2d 182 most Miranda Miranda warning. guard: v. Oregon nent to this Court Arizona, 384 U.S. 86 S.Ct. Elstad, 1285, 84 470 U.S. 105 S.Ct. Miranda provided 694. L.Ed.2d (1985), that defen held a L.Ed.2d ” that, any questioning a “prior person remark, ques in answer dant’s prior rights, must be includ- informed certain investigation, does during police tion silent, ing the to remain which can right a subsequent more”—make not—“without knowingly, voluntarily be waived after Miranda statement inadmissible Id. at intelligently. 86 S.Ct. 1602 Elstad, at warning given. 470 U.S. added).1 (emphasis 300, 309, 105 S.Ct. 1285. The requirement reiterate, the As Elstad and Tucker purposes. “For un

serves several those of Miranda are to deter goals improper privilege, warning aware of the is and to assure trustworthy make it— conduct simply needed them aware of evidence, not specifically evidence that has requirement for an the threshold intelli ap that been obtained gent its exercise. More circumstances decision Elstad with pear is an to be coercive. dealt important, warning such absolute tremendously Supreme Court held has had a shatter- 1. The United States “Miranda police pro- ing impact upon all levels protection from the that derived Consti- is, sig- unquestionably, the most thus, fession and, legislative subject re- tution nificant, far-reaching, all-encompassing peal applicability to the and reaffirmed its justice the broad field of criminal decision in States, 530 U.S. states. Dickerson United Aubry, & S. Jr. handed down.” Arthur ever 428, 438-39, 434, 2326, 147 120 S.Ct. Interrogation Rudolph Caputo, R. Criminal (2000). L.Ed.2d 405 1980). (3d ed. what the Court “a simple procuring described as admis- taught the first warnings.” that, failure to “biggest administer the stumbling sion is the block” overcome, There was no usually once leads to a full con- intentional violation of subject “The fession. must be motivated admissibility admission, Court held “the first how to make the no matter subsequent any trivial,” turn in according should small or apparently solely these circumstances on whether it is S. RUDOLPH R. AüBRY, CAPUTO, ARTHUR JR. & ed.1980). and voluntarily made.” Id. knowingly (3d Interrogation CRIMINAL “If this admission is related to the crime But what about circumstances such as subject and to interroga- matter of the violation this case where the tion, every there is expect reason to was intentional? An violation intentional others, will first admission lead to of Miranda shifts the from the goal focus eventually to a full confession.” gaining trustworthy though evidence— major is still a goal concern—to Once the officer has the initial admis- deterring improper police conduct. sion, “skillfully the officer uses in- applied terrogation techniques” to “motivate Intentional Miranda Violations Id. suspect making into the confession.” pur The officer in case this at 26. of these to con- techniques One is Miranda posefully warning withheld a suspect front the with the earlier admis- of a part two-step interrogation technique sion, is what in case. which occurred this designed to elicit an initial confession be reading rights, hoping fore the accused her Miranda If a the in- warning precedes would repeat that she that confession. As terrogation, perfectly this is a legitimate noted, Officer Hanrahan testified that he case, interroga- But in this technique. the a made conscious decision not to advise proceeded tion without warn- required hop Seibert he was because admission ing, then after the first was get an a Mi- ing made, admission from her and short break and then specifically arresting asked the officer not randa warning interrupted interroga- Miranda give warning. Officer Han- tion. strategy rahan characterized the as fol run” undeniably This an was “end lows: around Miranda. When an choos- officer Basically, you’re You’re rolling the dice. tactic, should, this es to use the officer doing you a first under- stage where Miranda, risks of under understand the if you’re something told that stand biggest doing so. risk is that read the you do if rights, when may not be able to use the prosecution them, they you invoke use what can’t risk, in its ease chief. That fully were you told. We were aware of course, may weighed against be desira- that. We went with the second forward information, as the bility getting such Miranda, stage, repeated read and she witnesses or physical names of location of items she had told us. be, And it cir- may evidence. well under Securing a first matter differ from those this admission-—no cumstances case, prosecution may small—is the “break- neverthe- how often called Interrogators to show that the confession through” or “beachhead”.3 less be able (1976). Royal F. Schuit, 3. See Robert & Steven R. Interrogation Interviewing Art of Gentle can look to fact-specific, courts voluntary Miranda-based tion despite was closely subsequent confession contrary. whether the presumption by the first and was obtained followed the Subsequent Admis- Voluntariness surroundings. officials the same same sion bar, Seibert the case at example, For Mi Upon finding an intentional minutes, in an to 40 questioned was violation, a randa must court ascertain emotional manner. She became intense volun whether the warned statement was and, point, interview at one during the so, tary. In examines the doing court arm squeezed Hanrahan Officer facts circumstances to “determine stated, “Donald to die repeatedly any degree of connection between causal continued in this manner sleep.” He (and unconstitutional conduct the state sup- agreed that Donald was until Seibert therefrom) resulting confes ment Then, after a 20- in the fire. posed die Fakes, v. sion made later.” State break, read and minute Seibert was State (Mo.App.2001) (citing S.W.3d her rights. The same waived (Mo. Wright, banc S.W.2d interrogated her the same room officers 1974)). The wheth court should ascertain confes- only minutes after her unwarned purpose er the violation was point It at this that she con- sion. suspect’s ability exer “undermine the firmed unwarned statements. cise his free will.” 470 U.S. at circumstances, if any little In these In light of the record in this given to the fact that Sei- weight can be the violation presumes Court In State a Miranda waiver.4 signed bert was a tactic to elicit a and was confession Fakes, appeals suppressed court of ability used weaken know- to Seibert’s to interroga- Fakes was similar confession. ingly voluntarily and exercise her constitu- station length at while at the ted otherwise, rights. If the were tional truth receiving the Miranda warning. before have specifi- Officer Hanrahan would not intense, officials interrogation The cally to arresting instructed the officer a Miranda warning give not Fakes did a Miranda giving warning. refrain from Fakes, until she became emotional. “breakthrough” He wanted to secure a post- In Fakes’ suppressing at 32. S.W.3d her warning admission before Seibert of confession, Miranda questioned the court rights because he feared that she would voluntariness of Fakes’ Miranda waiv- rights assert those were she made aware “In fact that she was so er: view the of them. extensively interrogated before she was clear as in rights, of her it is not as in de- advised important

Another consideration proximity Wright and Elstad that she later voluntari- termining voluntariness is when, finally after place subsequent ly time and of the confes- waived those having rights, far of her she sion. If the warned confession is been advised confession, earlier.” the statements made from the first confirmed enough removed these, Id. voluntary In situations such as likely made a accused more subjected nearly to a accused is speak again. to each situa- where the decision While formality interro- though 30 minutes into the true to such This is even Officer Hanrahan Seibert, having change the fact that she was part gation does not each to read of Miranda nearly interroga- express subjected to a continuous orally understanding each tion, began proper a Miranda right independently instructing her which without and then warning. sign a form. Adherence initial waiver continuous period interrogation, it ent people present (Wright’s is mother and officers). Id. at 427. juvenile unreasonable to assume—and there is nothing in the to support record such an Elstad also is distinguishable in that assumption' simple recitation of —that evidence, there was no the instant Miranda would resurrect the opportunity the breach Miranda part obtain a voluntary waiver. premeditated of a tactic to elicit a confes- arresting testimony sion. “The officers’ Circuit, United States v. Eighth stop living indicates that the brief in the Carter, confession, suppressed written room before to the proceeding station which was after an executed initial un- house interrogate was not to the suspect, warned interrogation was followed but notify mother of for the reason Carter, a Miranda In warning. postal arrest.” U.S. at inspectors interrogated suspect, with- S.Ct. 1285. The Elstad court did find giving out warning, about his police engaged that the tac- “improper alleged possession mail nearly of stolen for tics”. hour an before he confessed. The interro-

gation place president’s took in the bank Here, however, Officer can- Hanrahan office, building where Carter didly admitted that the breach of worked, with seated Carter between the part was intentional and of a tactic to elicit Carter, States v. United inspectors. two presumed confession. It (8th Cir.1989). 884 F.2d strategy was used to weaken Seibert’s court found the second warned confession ability knowingly voluntarily exer- “came directly almost the heels” of the Further, cise her rights. constitutional first unwarned confession and that the un- warning 20-minute break confession, subsequent warned warnings separating the unwarned confession from “part parcel and confession were of a the warned confession was not enough Id. at 373. process.” continuous continuity disturb the where Officer Hanrahan tied the two presented When different with circum- stages using together by the interview stances, may the result be different. In stage in the first correct Wright, example, the accused was stage. her during the second brought into interrogation the room while questioning the officer was another sus- Officer Hanrahan’s intentional omis- advising Without Miranda pect. Wright warning first of his sion of a was intend- him, rights, constitutional the officer asked ed to of deprive opportunity Seibert the ‘What you shotgun?” did do with the her knowingly intelligently or to waive “Le- Wright replied, words that effect. Both in- rights. stages the roy, you you know I in- gave shotgun. nearly the I terview formed a continuous terrogation by don’t know where it at.” -The was interrogated officer —she Wright any advised not to make the the place further same officials same placed was then in with un- Wright only separating statements. minutes the juvenile custody. Wright, questioning. S.W.2d warned and warned There (Mo. 1974). banc In finding that are no that would seem circumstances of the Wright’s subsequent vio- dispel statements were not the effect coerced, reasons, the court noted second inter- lation. For these Seibert’s post-Miranda rogation following day, was held the at a and confession was waiver (the juvenile and, therefore, different location in- building involuntary inadmissible. station), fu- police stead and with differ- encourage To hold otherwise would the same.” and, inevitably, prosecutors do courts ture Miranda violations n. protecting privi- Id. at 318 S.Ct. Miranda’s role di- would lege against self-incrimination Prejudice able to use this minish. Were erred the trial court Because run” to secure “end around Miranda confes admitting post-Miranda Seibert’s all-important “breakthrough” admis- sion, and re should be reversed the case sion, warning of a requirement error for new trial unless the manded meaningless. Officers would would be Miller, 650 was harmless. State v. S.W.2d warn, they knowing have incentive to no (Mo. 1983). banc Seibert indirectly they what accomplish could as an degree murder convicted second accomplish directly.5 could not Almost killing Donald accessory knowingly dissent, years ago, in his Elstad Jus- to both read jury Rector. The was able El- predicted tice what Brennan her that she knew and hear statements majority “apocalyp- stad described an burned and that home was to be mobile would deliver tic tone” that Elstad he because sleep Donald could die “crippling to Miranda. blow” point, agreed At one she was on Prozac. 470 U.S. 818 n. S.Ct. Hanrahan that Donald with Officer gave 1285. Brennan warned that Elstad supposed sleep in his after he re die “every authorities incentive ... inter- pre-Miranda confes minded warnings an rogate suspects without or evidentiary strength sion. Because of the waiver, knowing that the fruits effective confession,6 con of a and because interrogations ‘ordinarily’ of such will be statements, involuntary tents of Seibert’s admitted, an subsequent admissible certainly not harm were ‘ordinarily’ can be obtained confession less. simply by reciting the warn-

ings shortly has been after the first re- procured asking the accused to Conclusion 358, 105 peat himself....” Id. at up set to violate interrogation was And, the testi- as evidenced trial Miranda to secure a confession. Hanrahan, mony of Officer officers por- suppressed only court unwarned intentionally in- have incentive to rec- interrogation. of the But on this tion terrogate administering without suspects ord, prosecution has not overcome do they being trained to Miranda — an produced presumption that this tactic however, majority, so. The Elstad said involuntary confession. The confession prediction apocalyptic Brennan’s —which remaining portion in this case—would happened is what suppressed. been also should have Brennan not result. “Justice reversed, case judgment is and the reasoning holding and The distorts decision, but, worse, trial remanded for a new trial. invites is our himself, Pitler, knowledgeable and "The actor most 5. See Robert M. Fruit the Poi- Shepardized, and 56 sonous Tree” Revisited unimpeachable about source information ” 579, (1968). Fulminante, 620 past conduct.’ Arizona Calif. L.Rev. 1246, 113 111 S.Ct. 499 U.S. In- 6. "A is like no other evidence. confession (1991) (quoting Bruton v. United 302 L.Ed.2d deed, prob- 'the confession is defendant’s own 1620, 139-40, States, 123, 88 S.Ct. 391 U.S. ably probative damaging evi- and most J„ (White, (1968) dissenting)). 20 L.Ed.2d 476 against be him.... dence that can admitted of a defendant come from admissions 708

WHITE, TEITELMAN, voluntary STITH and but unwarned ordi- JJ., concur. narily should suffice remove condi- precluded tions that admission of the earli- BENTON, J., in separate dissents Elstad, 314, er statement.” at 470 U.S. opinion filed. 1296, 105 S.Ct. at 84 L.Ed.2d at LIMBAUGH, C.J., PRICE, J., warnings given Seibert “ordi- BENTON, concur opinion J. narily” should make later confession admissible. BENTON, Judge. DUANE “Though requires that the un- Because the principal opinion does not warned admission be suppressed, must binding precedent, Oregon follow admissibility of any subsequent statement Elstad, 298, 1285, 470 U.S. 105 S.Ct. solely should turn these circumstances (1985), L.Ed.2d I dissent. knowingly it voluntarily whether is Elstad holds that “a suspect who has Elstad, 309, made.” 470 U.S. at responded yet once to unwarned uncoer- 1293, case, at 232. In 84 L.Ed.2d at this questioning thereby cive is not disabled sup- Seibert’s unwarned admissions were waiving rights from and confessing [her] pressed. The circuit court found that the after requisite [she] been warned statement knowingly and vol- Elstad, Miranda warnings.” 470 U.S. at untarily made. “In reviewing preserved 318, 1298, 105 S.Ct. at 84 L.Ed.2d at 238. relating error to a trial court’s on a order responses Patrice Seibert’s unwarned evidence, suppress motion to the facts and questioning Officer Hanrahan’s did not reasonable inferences from such facts are prevent waiving rights from favorably considered to the trial court’s confessing. ruling, and contrary evidence and infer- Galazin, “In these pre- circumstances ences disregarded.” [where State v. (Mo. 2001). is ceding admission unwarned but volun- 58 S.W.3d banc tary], careful and thorough administra- “It is an extension of Mi- unwarranted tion warnings of Miranda serves to cure simple randa to hold that a failure to the condition that rendered the unwarned warnings, administer the unaccompanied Elstad, statement inadmissible.” 470 U.S. by any actual or other circum- coercion 310-311, at at S.Ct. L.Ed.2d stances calculated to undermine the sus- case, at In the administration of pect’s will, ability to [her] exercise free so Miranda warnings was careful and thor- process taints the a sub- investigatory ough, as by tape demonstrated record- sequent voluntary and informed waiver is administration, ing form period.” ineffective some indeterminate initialed, that Seibert signed. dated and Elstad, at 470 U.S. S.Ct. at Elstad, As in the reading of Seibert’s at L.Ed.2d 232. In this there was undeniably complete re- Seibert, no “actual coercion” of or “other 314-315, corded. at 105 circumstances” that undermined her free 84 L.Ed.2d at 236. More- will. holds flatly “psycho- Elstad over, years Seibert was 39 when old she voluntary logical impact of disclosure of a A Appendix opinion confessed. to this coercion, guilty it secret” is not nor does “Warning Appendix the & Waiver Form.” compromise a the voluntariness of subse- B testimony discussing is the it. Elstad, quent informed waiver. 470 U.S. 1294, 312, “A subsequent administration of Mi- at at 84 at 105 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d has warnings suspect opinion disapproves randa to who 234. The Elstad such

709 “breakthrough” or not mention bag” logic “expansive.” officer did “cat out to In addition interrogation. Id. “beachhead” quoted “rolling paragraph the dice” coercive or im- deliberately “[A]bsent Hanrahan principal opinion, Officer obtaining the initial state- proper tactics withholding rights that testified ment, suspect the mere fact that at the outset means: not made an unwarned admission does presumption compulsion.” warrant a any information at may get A. You Elstad, 1296, 314, at 105 at 470 U.S. S.Ct. all. case, L.Ed.2d at 235. In Seibert’s 84 Q. interrogation? part In which deliberately there were no coercive tactics. may You never even part. A. In either produced, shown to No firearms were or get stage. the second to There during interrogation. Seibert Hanrahan testified based Officer way, physical nor any

were no threats Seibert, he prior conversations with two abuse. The or verbal conversation expected to be arrested believed she “very in- low conversational tones.” No story Although have a rehearsed. would or were made. There promises ducements Hanrahan asked Officer defense counsel deliberately coercive tac- is no evidence of techniques at about both tics. trial, hearing the Offi- suppression principal opinion distinguishes El- testify about cer—the witness stad, no noting that that case there were intent hope confession—stated “improper tactics.” In Seibert’s admission. gain a confession or was to tactics, principal opinion improper finds expressly commends confessions: Elstad presumes when it that the officer intended ‘remain a “Voluntary proper deprive opportunity her “of the know- Elstad, element law enforcement.’” ingly intelligently to waive Mi- 1291, 305, at at 105 S.Ct. U.S. rights.” randa 229, Ari- quoting L.Ed.2d at If there were substantial evidence that zona, 478, at at 384 U.S. following “inherently the officer did the — “Indeed, prohibited by the being far from coercive tactics or methods offensive Constitution, by wrong- guilt admissions to due initial ad process render the doers, coerced, inherently if not are desir- involuntary mission undermine the officially .... some coerced able Absent suspect’s will to invoke once [her] self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment they read the warned [her]”—then damning the most not violated even El suppressed. confession should be See Elstad, at admissions.” stad, at 470 U.S. at 84 L.Ed.2d at “When S.Ct. at L.Ed.2d at 237. ad- subsequent initial neither the nor point, majority pre- At this critical coerced, justification exists mission is little strategy had the sumes that the officer’s evi- highly probative permitting ability “to purpose weaken Seibert’s voluntary irre- confession be dence of voluntarily knowingly and exercise lost to the factfinder.” trievably sup- rights.” No evidence constitutional 1294-95, at 105 S.Ct. at 470 U.S. did not ports assumption. Seibert at L.Ed.2d testify any or at trial. hearing at Officer holding confessions invokes cases that his Elstad hearing Hanrahan testified police falsely stat- voluntary, though even gain “intent” some sort “hope” and were evi- turned State’s ed that a codefendant guilt. of confession or admission of 710

dence, or although the defendant did not Dickerson is: progeny “Miranda and its prior know that a coerced could in this govern admissibility confession Court the of Elstad, 317, not be admitted. 470 at statements during U.S. made custodial interro- 1297, 105 at in gation S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d at both 237. See state federal courts.” Burbine, Dickerson, 412, 432, also Moran v. 475 530 at U.S. 106 U.S. 120 S.Ct. at 2329-30, 1135, (1986) 147 (police S.Ct. 89 L.Ed.2d 410 L.Ed.2d at 412. This “proge- case, ny” failed to tell includes the Elstad suspect attorney’s as demon- efforts to him; by strated admitted, express reach Dickerson’s confession vol- discussion after (summarized waiver); Mathiason, above), of Elstad by untary Oregon v. 429 492, Dickerson’s 495-96, 711, 714, implicit approval: any- “If U.S. 97 S.Ct. 50 our 714, (1977) thing, subsequent cases have reduced L.Ed.2d 719 (police falsely told impact the legiti- the Miranda scene, rule suspect his fingerprints found at not law violation). mate enforcement reaffirming while “Miranda forbids the decision’s ruling core coercion, unwarned strategic not mere deception.... may statements not be used in as evidence Ploys to mislead suspect or lull into [her] prosecution’s case in chief.” Dicker- security a false sense of that do not rise to son, 443-44, 2336, 530 U.S. at 120 at S.Ct. of compulsion level or coercion 147 L.Ed.2d at 420. speak are not within Miranda’s concerns.” Perkins, 292, 297, Illinois 496 U.S. 110 The principal opinion asserts Elstad 2394, 2397, 243, S.Ct. 110 L.Ed.2d 251 not apply police intentionally does where (1990). Placing an undercover agent near warnings withhold Miranda the ini- before suspect in gather order to incrimina- Elstad, True, tial unwarned at statement. ting information permissible is under point, one describes initial unwarned Fifth Amendment. v. United “technically statement as violation Hoffa States, 304, 293, 408, 414, 385 U.S. 87 S.Ct. Elstad, 318, Miranda.” 470 at U.S. 374, (1966). 17 L.Ed.2d 1297-98, at 84 L.Ed.2d at 238. This passing comment in Elstad not sup- does principal opinion, emphasizing port principal opinion, as demonstrated lapse-of-time, change-of- factors of opinions Ap- recent Courts place, change-of-interrogators, and need- peals. to-dissipate-taint, the Oregon echoes court Elstad,

reversed and the courts case, other nearly On facts identical criticized Elstad. 470 U.S. United States of Appeals Court for the 310, 303, 317-18, 1290, 1293, banc, 105 S.Ct. at Circuit, Ninth en held that Elstad 1297, 228, 233, 84 L.Ed.2d at 237. Elstad applies long so initial unwarned clear makes that these factors consid- actually statement is not coerced. United ered if the first confession Orso, 1035, is coerced. 1030, States F.3d (9th Id. banc), Cir. en hearing en banc Jull denied, (2001). 275 F.3d 1190 The United is binding precedent. Elstad still Elstad Supreme States Court denied certiorari on approved Dickerson v. United pend- while this Orso case was States, 530 U.S. 120 S.Ct. - -, ing. (2000). 147 L.Ed.2d (2002). L.Ed.2d Supreme United States Court re-affirmed that the traditional “fruits” devel- Eighth doctrine It also true that the Circuit oped in Fourth contrary. Amendment cases made does to the Carter, apply to unwarned under United States v. 884 F.2d 372- Cir.1989). (8th holding However, Fifth Amendment. Id. The yet another

7H First, Circuit, principal opinion. Id. called state- both invoked Carter’s “facially ments “dicta” inconsistent at 319. Supreme

with in El- holding Court’s authority principal As for the other Esquilin, stad.” United States 208 F.3d discusses, opinion renders obsolete Elstad (1st Cir.2000). 315, The First 320 Circuit in this contrary Court’s deci- approach withholding then holds that deliberate years sion eleven earlier State v. before unwarned ad- (Mo. 421, Wright, 515 426-27 banc S.W.2d mission not make a does later warned 1974), Appeal’s and in the Court of deci- inadmissible. Id. at 320-21. statement Fakes, year sion last 51 State S.W.3d refuting principal Directly opinion’s re- 24, against (Mo.App.2001). banee “improper on “deterrence” tactics,” the First Circuit holds: resolved, of law are questions Once Although permit Elstad does not sup- it is clear be judge the trial should pression Esquilin’s voluntary state- reviewing a trial affirmed. “When court’s made after he was ment informed of ruling suppress, inquiry a motion to rights and voluntarily waived is limited to the court’s decision is whether them, oper- basic rule still evidence, supported by substantial Esquilin’s ates here to render un- initial deference trial court’s supe (but voluntary) warned inad- opportunity credibility rior to determine Supreme missible. The Court has ruled 1, Feltrop, witnesses.” State v. 803 S.W.2d

that Miranda’s deterrence rationale re- (Mo. denied, banc), cert. that, Elstad, quires no more than see (1991). 115 L.Ed.2d U.S. at record, and we are L.Ed.2d not free to On this is substantial evi there ignore judgement. dence that both the unwarned warned Thus, voluntary. statements were under Id. at The Esquilin specifi- case also cally rejects the warned statement is admissi “nearly holds Elstad ble, lapse” and “time arguments, judge continuous” as the trial ruled. A

APPENDIX B APPENDIX read the waiv- suspect allow usually E. Testimony Richard of Officer

Trial er. Transcript (Excerpt of Hanrahan read? waiver Q. How does that 18— Pages line March 15) 920, line above It have read the says A. —“I I my understand rights statement station, at the Q. you When arrived make willing I am to my rights are. what her— an initial with you had conversation I do questions. and answer is that correct? time. I under- lawyer not want a That’s correct. A. doing. No know what I am stand and made to me have been promises or threats initial did Q. After that conversation any kind coercion pressure and no or rights the Defendant of her you inform against me.” been used under the Miranda decision? fact, the Defen- Q. you In did threaten Yes, A. I did. in fashion? any dant Q. you I’d like to hand what’s been IA. did not. you Exhibit 37 and ask marked as State’s weapon or threat- Q. you display Did if you please? can tell me what this is mean, you things can en do weapon —I Yes, A. sir—this is a advisement rights anything you Did do that non-verbal. provided by the with Louis detective St. threatening as would be taken that County night. that average person? that, fact, no, Q. was in read to the And I sir. A. don’t believe so— Defendant? any Q. promise Did the Defendant you her any kind order induce benefit Yes, sir, A. it was. you? to speak with you if Q. And did ask. her she under- make her feel A. truth would rights you each of read stood those better. much them to her? Q. you that all said? Was her, A. As I read them I simply I I I told her believed A. believe so. when I finished. check-marked them was hurting and the lie was lying that she was right. I if each asked her she understood her. you in some Q. Did she indicate to fact, Sir, sign ask her to Q. you, did whether she did or not? fashion rights form if she understood Yes, A. she did. you? agreed speak with Yes, sir, Q. response what each I And was A. did.

case? so in Q. did the Defendant do And your presence? understood

A. She indicated she signed and she next each sir, Yes, she did. A. she state that understood. you signature out Q. point Would please? to the Court sir,

Q. you did then read the waiv- And er of the form? portion (Complies) A. sir, form you sign I Q.

A. I believe let her read the waiver. And did yourself I as a witness? my report I’d have check to be sure.

PER CURIAM. Yes, sir, A. I did. Clampitt was convicted St. Francois County placed on probation. onWhile Q. And anyone you was with who also probation, he additional of- committed. signed that form? jail placed proba- fenses. He was for a A. Rodger Fire Marshal Windle was probation revoked, tion violation. His also there. and he began serving his sentence department Ultimately, of corrections. he Q. your signatures And are both then convicted additional offenses in present on that form as witnesses to her Washington County concurrent signature and waiver having in- been “jail sentences with credit for time.” He formed waiving her rights? “jail-time” concluded the credit was not Yes, sir, A. they are. properly computed and filed this declarato- ry judgment action. The trial court en- Q. Would you point your out signature summary tered judgment Clam- denying and Officer Windle’s signature please? pitt any relief. (Complies) A. The trial judgment court’s is supported against substantial evidence and is not weight of the evidence. No error of appears. The judgment

law is affirmed 84.16(b). pursuant to Rule All concur. CLAMPITT, Appellant,

Robert (Jay)

Jeremiah W. NIXON and Mis- Department

souri of Correc- Missouri, Respondent, STATE of tions, Respondents. No. SC 84215. RUTTER, Appellant. Charles Lee Missouri,

Supreme Court of No. SC 84518. En Banc. Supreme Missouri, Court of

Dec. 2002. En Banc. Rehearing Denied Jan. 2003.

Dec.

Rehearing Denied Jan.

Robert Clampitt, City, pro Jefferson se. Nixon, Gen., (Jay) Atty.

Jeremiah W. Gen., Spillane, Atty.

Michael J. Asst. Jef- City, respondents.

ferson

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Seibert

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Dec 10, 2002

Citation: 93 S.W.3d 700

Docket Number: SC 84315

Court Abbreviation: Mo.