Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

California v. Prysock

Supreme Court of the United States · 1981 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureMiranda warningsCustodial interrogationRight to counselMirandawarningsappointed counselright to counsel

Facts

After a murder, respondent, a juvenile, was arrested and initially advised of his Miranda rights, at which time he declined to speak. After his parents arrived, an officer again advised him on tape that he had the right to remain silent, that his statements could be used against him, that he had the right to talk to a lawyer before questioning and to have one present during questioning, and that he had the right to have a lawyer appointed at no cost. Respondent then agreed to talk and made recorded incriminating statements with his parents present. The California Court of Appeal held the warnings inadequate because they did not explicitly state that appointed counsel was available before further questioning.

Issue

Whether Miranda was satisfied when police told the suspect he had the right to speak to a lawyer before and during questioning and separately told him he had the right to appointed counsel at no cost, but did not expressly say in one phrase that appointed counsel was available before questioning.

Rule

Miranda warnings need not follow the exact wording of the Miranda opinion. The warnings are sufficient if, taken together, they fully convey to the suspect the right to remain silent, the right to counsel before and during interrogation, and the right to appointed counsel at no cost, so long as the reference to appointed counsel is not linked only to some future time after interrogation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, detectives arrested Leo Martin for burglary and questioned him at a precinct station. Before asking any questions, they told him: "You do not have to speak with us. Anything you say can be used in court. You may speak with an attorney before any questions, and an attorney may be with you during questioning. If you cannot pay for an attorney, one will be provided for you without charge."

If Leo moves to suppress his statement on the ground that the warning did not exactly track the standard formula, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Miranda does not require a verbatim or talismanic recitation. The proper inquiry is whether the warnings, taken together, fully conveyed the suspect's rights. Here, the officers clearly advised Leo of silence, use of statements, counsel before and during questioning, and free counsel if indigent. That is a fully effective equivalent.