RELATED PRODUCTS MORE >>
-
Get Informed
Free Legal Information
Accidents & Injuries Bankruptcy Business Formation: LLCs & Corporations Criminal Law Debt Management Disability Law Divorce & Family Law DUI / DWI & Traffic Tickets Employment Law Foreclosure Immigration Landlords LGBT Law Nonprofits Patent, Copyright & Trademark Personal Finance Real Estate Small Business Small Claims Court & Lawsuits Social Security & Retirement Tenants Taxes Wills, Trusts & Probate -
Do It Yourself
Shop at Nolo
-
Find a Lawyer
Nolo's Lawyer Directory




If a police officer gives a suspect a Miranda warning and then physically coerces the suspect into talking (say, by refusing a suspect’s requests for medicine that the suspect has to take), the resulting statement cannot be used against the suspect.
A confession following the giving of a Miranda warning also cannot be used against a suspect if it’s the result of a ploy known as “question first, warn later.” Police using this technique question a suspect without giving a Miranda warning. If a suspect confesses, the police then give a Miranda warning and convince the suspect that having already confessed, the suspect should waive (give up) the right to remain silent and repeat the confession. Even though the second confession follows a Miranda warning, neither the first nor the second confession can be used against the suspect at trial (Missouri v. Seibert, U.S. Sup. Ct. 2004).