Opinion ID: 546224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Were the Warnings Misleading?

Text: 27 In Duckworth v. Eagan, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989), the Supreme Court explained that Miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact words that the court scribed in its landmark Miranda decision. 4 Id. at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 2880. The prophylactic Miranda warnings are 'not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.'  Id. (quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 444, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 2359, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974)). The Court noted that officers in the field sometimes may not have access to printed Miranda warnings (e.g., while working undercover) and that it is sufficient for an officer to provide the functional equivalent of the Miranda warnings from memory. Id., 109 S.Ct. at 2879-80. We note that officers generally do not carry a Miranda warning card while working undercover. 28 In light of Duckworth, we believe that Velez's recitation of the rights sufficiently conveyed Cruz's rights to him. The one problematic statement, that the defendants could speak without a lawyer present if they wanted to, was not an inaccurate characterization of the defendants' rights. We do not endorse this statement for inclusion in the Miranda litany, but under these circumstances we do not believe that it diluted the substance of the warnings. There is nothing in this record indicating that Cruz felt intimidated by Velez's gratuitous remark. According to Velez's testimony, Cruz stated that he understood his rights. 5 Although the district court did not explicitly find that the defendants understood their rights, it apparently found Velez's testimony credible, and we accept that credibility determination as not clearly erroneous. 6 In sum, we hold that Velez's warnings reasonably 'convey[ed] to [Cruz] his rights as required by Miranda.'  Duckworth, --- U.S. at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 2880 (quoting California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 361, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2810, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981) (per curiam)).