California v. Prysock
United States Supreme Court
453 U.S. 355 (1981)
Relevant factsFree
Police gave Prysock (defendant) Miranda warnings in a sequence that separated the warning about his right to consult an attorney during questioning from the warning about his right to a free, appointed attorney, rather than presenting them together as in Miranda's own model language; the trial court admitted his resulting confession, but the appellate court reversed his conviction, finding the warnings insufficiently clear, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
IssueFree
Whether Miranda warnings must conform to the exact language and formulation set out in Miranda v. Arizona to be constitutionally adequate.