Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureMiranda warningsCustodial interrogationRight to counselMirandaappointed counselif and when you go to courtcustodial interrogation
Facts
Before questioning respondent at Hammond police headquarters, police gave him a written warning stating that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him, that he had the right to talk to a lawyer before and during questioning, and that he had that right even if he could not afford one. The warning also stated: "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." Respondent signed the form and first gave an exculpatory statement; about 29 hours later, after receiving a second warning, he confessed and led police to the knife and clothing. At trial, the confession, first statement, knife, and clothing were admitted over objection.
Issue
Whether Miranda warnings are constitutionally inadequate because they inform an indigent suspect that a lawyer will be appointed "if and when you go to court," even though the warnings also state that the suspect has the right to counsel before and during questioning. Relatedly, whether the first statement and derivative physical evidence were properly admitted.
Rule
Miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form used in Miranda. The question is whether the warnings, viewed as a whole, reasonably convey to the suspect the rights required by Miranda, including the right to counsel before and during questioning and the right to appointed counsel if the suspect cannot afford one.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Toledo, detectives questioned Nina Alvarez at headquarters about a burglary. Before questioning, they told her: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used in court. You may speak with a lawyer before we ask questions and have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you when you are brought before the court. If you choose to answer now, you may stop at any time until you speak with a lawyer."
Nina moves to suppress, arguing that the warning was invalid because it did not say appointed counsel would be available "before any questioning" and instead referred to appointment when she is brought before the court. How should the court rule?
Explanation. Miranda warnings need not use any talismanic wording. The controlling question is whether, taken as a whole, they reasonably convey the required rights. A warning is not defective merely because it explains that appointed counsel will be provided when the suspect is brought before court, so long as it also clearly states that the suspect has the right to consult with counsel before questioning and to have counsel present during questioning. The Constitution does not require police to have counsel instantly available; it requires that the suspect be informed of the rights and that questioning not proceed without waiver.