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?
Interested in getting help with this assignment?
Get a professional writing team to work on your assignment!
Order NowRecent posts
- Your company has determined that the time is right to expand globally. As a corporate manager within the organization, you have been assigned to identify and select a team of fi
- You will submit your introduction to your case analysis. In the paper, discuss which case scenario you will be analyzing. Also include an outline of the key facts of the case, a
- You just viewed a scene from the film ‘Dances with Wolves’ starring Kevin Costner. The year is 1868 and Kevin Costner’s character, Lieutenant John Dunbar, is posted at an army b
- You have to do a PESTEL and a Porters 5 forces. You have to make -1 slide intro about the company 1 slide for each so PESTEL will have on slide for Politcal, one slide for e
- You have been asked to present your plan for the proposed health care facility to the Board of Directors. Based on your previous assignments, you are to develop a proposal T