Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-2004
Abstract
Some months after I finished writing an article that, inter alia, discussed the lower court opinions in Patane and Seibert (an article that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Journa),1 the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in those cases.2 In Patane, a 5-4 majority held admissible a Glock pistol located as a result of a failure to comply with Miranda. In Seibert, a 5-4 majority agreed with the state court that a "second confession," one obtained after the police had deliberately used a two-stage interrogation technique designed to undermine the Miranda warnings, was inadmissible. 3 In Patane, Justice Souter, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, dissented. In Seibert, Justice Souter, joined by the three Patane dissenters, wrote the principal opinion. The Chief Justice and Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas would have admitted the evidence in both cases. Therefore, the lineup in both cases was the same except for Justice Kennedy. He sided with the prosecution in Patane, but with the defense in Seibert.
Recommended Citation
Kamisar, Yale. "Postscript: Another Look at Patane and Seibert, the 2004 Miranda 'Poisoned Fruit' Cases." Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 2, no. 1 (2004): 97-114.
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons