CrimLaw

---

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a fairly typical police technique is unconstitutional.

Police around the nation know that if they get a flawed confession (without telling the suspect his Miranda rights) they can read the Miranda rights to the the suspect and ask the same questions and the statements after are admissible. The courts usually rely on the specious argument that once the rights have been told to the suspect he understands that nothing he said previously is allowed in court (although that is never explained to the defendant). Back in the real world, the suspect thinks he has already confessed so saying it again will not change anything; of course, police do not disabuse him of this quite rational conclusion.

I think the requestioning can be constitutional if the suspect is specifically informed that nothing he has said prior to the Miranda warnings is admissable in court.

.