LAW 605 Lecture Notes - Lecture 52: United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit
23 Dec 2019
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Case #8: police correctly give 4 warnings and ask if d understands. Then makes incriminating statement: warnings given and understood by the d + uncoerced statement by d = implied waiver (thompkins, effect: thompkins stands for the idea that no longer have to ask d if he waives his rights. In this case, police brought d a gatorade, released him from handcuffs, and acted professionally the entire time. Foundational case is oregon v. elstad (1985: police obtained un-mirandized confession. Look at: time that passes between confessions, change in place of interrogation, change in identity of interrogators, police response to elstad was making the two-step interrogation process practice result was seibert decision. Missouri v. seibert (2004: at issue was the two-step interrogations practice, 1) question suspect w/o warnings, get confession. Trying to see if so close/similar that 1st confession taints the 2nd.
