California v. Prysock

The Supreme Court does not require that an officer use the precise language contained in the Miranda case when notifying defendants of their Miranda warnings. The Court actually stated in Miranda that “the warnings required and the waiver necessary … are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant (emphasis added).” Further, in Rhode Island v. Innis, the Court discussed the Miranda case and noted that what was required was “the now familiar Miranda warnings … or their equivalent.” In this case, “nothing in the warnings given the [defendant] suggested any limitation on the right to the presence of appointed counsel different from the clearly conveyed rights to a lawyer in general, including the right ‘to a lawyer before you are questioned … while you are being questioned, and all during the questioning.”