California v. Prysock

435 U.S. 355 (1981)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mrs. Erickson was brutally murdered. Prysock (D) and a codefendant were apprehended for commission of the offense. D was advised of his Miranda rights. He declined to talk, and, since he was a minor, his parents were notified. D's parents arrived and, after meeting with them, D decided to answer police questions. The following warnings were given prior to any questioning: Number one, you have the right to remain silent. This means you don't have to talk to me at all unless you so desire. Do you understand this?'...If you give up your right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a court of law. Do you understand this?'....You have the right to talk to a lawyer before you are questioned, have him present with you while you are being questioned, and all during the questioning. Do you understand this? '...You also, being a juvenile, you have the right to have your parents present, which they are. Do you understand this?'....Even if they weren't here, you'd have this right. Do you understand this?'...You have the right to have a lawyer appointed to represent you at no cost to yourself. Do you understand this?'....Now, having all these legal rights in mind, do you wish to talk to me at this time?' The court denied D's motion to suppress the taped statement. D was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with two special circumstances -- torture and robbery. The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District reversed and ruled that D's recorded incriminating statements, given with his parents present, had to be excluded from consideration by the jury because D was not properly advised of his right to the services of a free attorney before and during interrogation. It ruled that the warnings were inadequate because D was not explicitly informed of his right to have an attorney appointed before further questioning. The Court of Appeal stated that Miranda was only met but its precise requirements. The California Supreme Court denied a petition for hearing, with two justices dissenting. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.