Supreme Court to Rule on Flawed Miranda Warnings

The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether police violate a suspect’s rights when they fail to recite the precise words familiar to every fan of TV cop shows--the famous Miranda warning.

The justices said they will hear an appeal by Indiana officials seeking to reinstate a conviction for attempted murder. A lower court said the suspect’s rights were violated when police strayed from the exact wording of the Miranda warning.

The court will hear arguments by the officials that there should not be “overly simplistic reliance upon the use of ‘magic words’ to inform a defendant of his rights.”

35-Year Sentence

The case involves Gary Eagan, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for attempted murder.

Eagan telephoned Chicago police on May 16, 1982, and told them he found a dead naked woman along the shore of Lake Michigan in Indiana.

When he led police there, the woman was still alive and upon seeing Eagan she asked, “Why did you stab me?”

She later testified that she was picked up by Eagan and some companions in South Chicago, was taken to the beach and had sexual relations with several of the men. When she refused Eagan, she said he stabbed her.

Chicago police had turned over the case to police in Hammond, Ind. At the station house there, Eagan signed a police form that included this paragraph:

“You have this right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.”

Eagan subsequently confessed to attempted murder. But the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the wording of the police form was ambiguous and misleading and violated the rights protected by the Supreme Court’s 1966 Miranda ruling.

The Miranda warning, usually carried on a wallet-size card by police officers, advises people under arrest that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say can be used against them in court.

The suspect also is told, “You have the right to the presence of an attorney to assist you prior to questioning, and to be with you during questioning if you so desire. If you cannot afford an attorney, you have the right to have an attorney appointed for you prior to questioning.”

Other court actions today, Page 2.