§ 24.09 Adequacy of Miranda Warnings

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 24.09 Adequacy of Miranda Warnings

The Supreme Court announced in California v. Prysock¹⁴³ that no "talismanic incantation" of the Miranda warnings is required, as long as the officer's explanation of the suspect's constitutional rights is a "fully effective equivalent" of the Miranda warnings. Thus, although a benefit of Miranda is its supposed bright-line nature, and the Miranda warnings themselves are easily stated, the Court has approved a case-by-case factual inquiry when officers "ad lib" or a police department develops a different version of the warnings.

Although this rule is not in direct conflict with Miranda, the Court's application of it in Duckworth v. Eagan¹⁴⁴ arguably "dealt Miranda a heavy blow."¹⁴⁵ In Duckworth, the police read D a set of warnings that included the following remarks:

Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have a right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning. You have this right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court. . . .

In view of the second italicized remark, a federal court concluded that the warnings were defective because D, an indigent, could reasonably have interpreted the words to mean that a lawyer would not be available to him until formal charges were brought, even if the questioning proceeded immediately.

The Supreme Court declared the warnings adequate.¹⁴⁶ According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, "[t]he inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably 'conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.'"¹⁴⁷ He stated that, in view of the first italicized sentence above, the warnings made sufficiently clear that questioning would not occur until D had a lawyer or waived the right. The warnings "touched all of the bases required by Miranda," and the officer's additional comment was accurate in terms of state law and under Miranda.¹⁴⁸ Professor Yale Kamisar has observed, however, that "if [D] were a smart, sophisticated fellow, he might have dissected the . . . police warning the way [the Court] did. . . . But the Miranda warnings weren't designed for smart, sophisticated people."¹⁴⁹

--------

Notes:

^[143] 453 U.S. 355 (1981).

^[144] 492 U.S. 195 (1989).

^[145] Yale Kamisar, Duckworth v. Eagan: A Little-Noticed Miranda Case That May Cause Much Mischief, 25 Crim. L. Bull...