California v. PrysockAnnotate this Case
453 U.S. 355 (1981)
U.S. Supreme Court
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)
California v. Prysock
Decided June 29, 1981
453 U.S. 355
Held: There is no rigid rule requiring that the content of the warnings to an accused prior to police interrogation required by Miranda v. Arizona,384 U. S. 436, be a virtual incantation of the precise language contained in the Miranda opinion. Thus, the California Court of Appeal erred in holding that Miranda warnings were inadequate simply because of the order in which they were given to respondent (a minor), where, after he was told that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before you are questioned, have him present with you while you are being questioned, and all during the questioning," he was informed that he had the right to have his parents present, and then was informed that he had "the right to have a lawyer appointed to represent you at no cost to yourself." These warnings adequately conveyed to respondent his right to have a lawyer appointed if he could not afford one prior to and during interrogation, and the Court of Appeal erred in concluding otherwise.
Certiorari granted; reversed and remanded.
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.