Missouri case gets hearing in U.S. top court

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A Missouri case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court could alter the national rules governing the admissibility of confessions criminal suspects make to police.

The case, which the high court has agreed to hear during its upcoming term, seeks to clarify the scope of officers' obligation to inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle said the name of the defendant, Patrice Seibert of Rolla, could end up synonymous with this area of constitutional law, just like that of Ernesto Miranda, whose 1966 Supreme Court case led to the creation of the so-called Miranda rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.

"I'd say Miranda's name is much more famous than any of the nine justices that decided the case," Swingle said.

In a 4-3 ruling issued last December, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned Seibert's conviction for second-degree murder, saying her confession to police was improperly obtained and should have been excluded from evidence at her trial.

The interrogating officer admitted he purposely refrained from issuing Seibert a Miranda warning in hopes of eliciting a confession. After she did so, the officer then informed her of her rights, which she waived before repeating her statements in a second interview.

The Missouri court's majority said that since the second confession was the product of the illegally obtained first statement, neither was admissible. The dissenting judges argued that since the second confession was voluntarily given, the trial judge was correct in allowing it as evidence.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon appealed to the federal high court, which is expected to hear the case in December.

Nixon said he hopes the court will use the Seibert case and two related cases from other states it also has accepted to bolster the rights of citizens while clarifying what law enforcement may do under Miranda.

"It is not supposed to be an impediment to police officers who get facts from people who have voluntarily given them," Nixon said.

Attorneys with the State Public Defender's Office, which represented Seibert before the Missouri Supreme Court, could not be reached for comment.

Reporting son's death

On Feb. 12, 1997, Seibert's 12-year-old son, Jonathan, who suffered from cerebral palsy, died in his sleep. Afraid to report the death to authorities for fear of being accused of neglect, Seibert, along with her two surviving teenage sons and two of their friends, concocted a plan to set fire to their trailer home to cover up the death.

Killed in the fire was Donald Rector, a 17-year-old boy with a mental disorder who lived with the family.

When questioned by Rolla police officer Richard Hanrahan five days later, Seibert stated that Rector was intended to die in the fire.

Hanrahan testified that his training taught him to withhold a Miranda warning during initial questioning to make it easier to get an admission. A follow-up interview after the suspect had been Mirandized could then produce an admissible confession. However, Hanrahan admitted using that tactic was "rolling the dice," as the suspect could invoke his or her rights to prevent police from obtaining a usable statement.

Escaping Miranda

Judge Michael A. Wolff, writing for the state Supreme Court majority, said the officer's tactic, would encourage future Miranda violations if found acceptable.

"Were police able to use this 'end run' around Miranda to secure the all-important 'breakthrough' admission, the requirement of a warning would be meaningless," Wolff wrote. "Officers would have no incentive to warn, knowing they could accomplish indirectly what they could not accomplish directly."

The court's other three Democratic appointees, judges Laura Denvir Stith, Richard B. Teitelman and Chief Justice Ronnie L. White, joined Wolff in the majority.

The Republican appointees -- judges Duane Benton, Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. and William Ray Price Jr. -- dissented.

The minority opinion written by Benton claims the principal opinion ignored the binding precedent of Oregon v. Elstad, a post-Miranda U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The federal court ruled in Elstad that a suspect's responses to "unwarned yet uncoercive questioning" do not invalidate subsequent, voluntary statements given after a suspect has been informed of his or her rights.

Benton wrote that there was no evidence Seibert was coerced.

"On this record, there is substantial evidence that both the unwarned and warned statements were voluntary," Benton wrote. "Thus, under Elstad, the warned statement is admissible, as the trial judge ruled."

Swingle, the Cape Girardeau County prosecutor, said cases similar to Seibert's frequently arise in Missouri, and that law enforcement will welcome clear guidance on the issue from the federal court.

Although he believes the officer's tactic was constitutional, Swingle said promptly informing suspects of their rights lessens the likelihood of a confession being excluded.

"Generally, I tell officers it's always safer to read a suspect the Miranda warning right off the bat," Swingle said.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608