<span>In the Elstad case the court ruled that
the suspect’s statement that put him in the act, or admitted guilt was unsolicited. He was taken to the station and Maranda
before he gave a second statement.
During the questioning of Seibert, five days after the act, the officer
questioned her for 30 to 40 minutes obtaining a confession that caused a death
in the fire of her trailer. After taking
a 20 minute break the officer came back, read the Maranda and obtained a signed
waiver. Then got another statement. The
District Court suppressed the prewarning statement but admitted the post
warning one, and Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder. The Missouri
Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the case indistinguishable from Oregon
v. Elstad,
in which this Court held that a suspect's
unwarned inculpatory statement made during a brief exchange at his house did
not make a later, fully warned inculpatory statement inadmissible. In
reversing, the State Supreme Court held that, because the interrogation was
nearly continuous, the second statement, which was clearly the product of the
invalid first statement, should be suppressed; and distinguished Elstad
on the ground that the warnings had not intentionally been withheld</span>
