California v. Prysock
453 U.S. 355 (1981) (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona do not need to be a verbatim recital of the language from the opinion. So long as the warnings, in their totality, reasonably convey to a suspect their rights, they are constitutionally adequate.
Facts:
- On January 30, 1978, Donna Iris Erickson was murdered.
- Later that day, Randall James Prysock, a minor, was apprehended in connection with the murder.
- At a sheriff's substation, Prysock was initially advised of his Miranda rights and declined to talk.
- Prysock's parents were notified and came to the station.
- After meeting with his parents, Prysock agreed to be questioned by police.
- With his parents present, an officer re-advised Prysock of his rights on tape, first stating he had the right to a lawyer before, during, and throughout questioning.
- The officer then advised Prysock that, as a juvenile, he had a right to have his parents present.
- Following that, the officer stated, "you have the right to have a lawyer appointed to represent you at no cost to yourself."
- Prysock's mother asked if her son could still have an attorney at a later time if he gave a statement without one, and the officer assured her Prysock could have one at that moment if he wished.
- Prysock then waived his rights and made incriminating statements.
Procedural Posture:
- Randall Prysock's motion to suppress his taped statement was denied in the Superior Court of Tulare County, the trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Prysock of first-degree murder and other offenses.
- Prysock, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeal reversed Prysock's convictions, finding the Miranda warnings were defective and the statement should have been suppressed.
- The State of California petitioned the California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for a hearing, which was denied.
- The State of California, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Miranda warnings that inform a suspect of his right to an attorney before and during questioning and, in a separate statement, inform him of his right to have an attorney appointed at no cost, adequately convey the suspect's right to have a free attorney present prior to and during interrogation?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The warnings given to Prysock adequately conveyed his Miranda rights. Miranda does not require a 'talismanic incantation' or a rigid, verbatim recitation of the language used in that opinion; a 'fully effective equivalent' is sufficient. The warnings provided to Prysock informed him of his right to have a lawyer present before and during interrogation and his right to have a lawyer appointed at no cost. Nothing in the phrasing suggested that the right to appointed counsel was limited to some future point in time, unlike other cases where warnings have been found deficient. The warnings, taken together, made it clear that Prysock had the right to a lawyer, appointed at no cost, before and during his interrogation.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The warnings given to Prysock were constitutionally inadequate because they were ambiguous and failed to clearly inform him of his right to have a free attorney appointed before questioning began. By separating the warning about the right to counsel during interrogation from the warning about the right to appointed counsel, the police created ambiguity. A suspect could reasonably interpret this to mean that an 'appointed' lawyer is only available later for trial, not immediately for the interrogation. The subsequent confusion of Prysock's parents, who asked about 'hiring' a lawyer, demonstrates that the essential information was not effectively conveyed, prioritizing the form of the ritual over the substance of the message.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the substance, not the precise form, of Miranda warnings is what matters for constitutional purposes. It rejects a hyper-technical approach, giving law enforcement flexibility in how they phrase the warnings. However, this flexibility also creates a potential for litigation, as courts must determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular formulation constitutes a 'fully effective equivalent' of the Miranda rights. The ruling's key takeaway is that as long as the core rights are communicated clearly and do not link the availability of appointed counsel to a future event, the warnings will likely be upheld.
Unlock the full brief for California v. Prysock