Anyone who has seen a cop show knows about the now famous 1966 Miranda<\/em> case where the US Supreme Court imposed procedures designed to protect people from being coerced into giving a confession to the police while the person is being interrogated in police custody. The police, not wanting to be hindered by the requirement to provide Miranda<\/em> warnings developed a two-step \u201cquestion-first warn later\u201d technique wherein the police interrogate a suspect without providing Miranda<\/em> warnings, get the suspect to fully confess, then give the suspect the Miranda<\/em> warnings and get the suspect to re-confess. <\/p>\n The effect of this technique \u2013 identified by the US Supreme Court in the 2004 case of Missouri v. Seibert<\/em> was to make the Miranda<\/em> warnings ineffective because most suspects would not believe that they \u201chave the right to remain silent\u201d after they have already fully confessed. Kenneth \u201cTray\u201d Gober an attorney at (more…)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Anyone who has seen a cop show knows about the now famous 1966 Miranda case where the US Supreme Court imposed procedures designed to protect people from being coerced into giving a confession to the police while the person is…<\/span><\/p>\n