Miranda Warnings: Is Specific Wording Required? (From Crime to Court: Police Officer's Handbook, P 1-4, 1989, Joseph C Coleman)

• NCJ Number: 119510
• Author(s): J C Coleman
• Date Published: 1989
• Length: 4 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Council
• Corporate Author: South Carolina Criminal Justice Acad
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Training (Aid/Material)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Article based on Crime to Court, a monthly continuing education television program for law enforcement officers produced by S.C. ETV and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy.

Annotation

This article summarizes the facts of Duckworth v. Eagan, a 1988 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the words "if and when you go to court" comply with the warning requirements of Miranda v. Arizona.

Abstract

Some States have authorized telling a criminal suspect who is in police custody and about to be interrogated that the suspect is entitled to a free lawyer "if and when you go to court." Some State and Federal courts found this language misleading, pointing out that a suspect could conclude that he or she is not entitled to a lawyer until going to court. Still other courts have held that the "if and when" language satisfies Miranda. In Duckworth v. Eagan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "if and when" language does satisfy Miranda.