Duckworth v. Eagan (1988)
- Docket
- 88-317
- Decided
- 1988-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the first warning and waiver negate the constitutional protections required by Miranda v. Arizona? Conclusion: In a closely divided decision, the Court held that informing Eagan that an attorney would be appointed for him "if and when you go to court" did not render the Miranda warnings inadequate. The Court reasoned that officers did not have to use the specific language of the Miranda decision so long as they reasonably conveyed to suspects their constitutional rights. Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the instructions given to Eagan accurately described the procedure for the appointment of counsel in Indiana.