Opinion ID: 544737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of the Confession

Text: 20 On retrial, the district court should exclude from the evidence Bland's confession to parole officer Blum. Blum's Miranda warning informed Bland he had a right to an attorney prior to questioning, and if he could not afford one, that an attorney would be appointed for him. The warning, however, failed to mention that Bland was entitled to have an attorney during questioning. 21 Although no talismanic incantation of the warning is necessary to satisfy Miranda, California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981), we have recognized the critical importance of the right to know that counsel may be present during questioning. United States v. Noti, 731 F.2d 610, 614 (9th Cir.1984). In Noti, we took the view that [t]here are substantial practical reasons for requiring that defendants be advised of their right to counsel during as well as before questioning. Id. at 615. We will not retreat from Noti here. 1 The warning given to Bland was inadequate. 22 Because we conclude that the warning was inadequate, we do not reach the issue of whether Bland waived his Miranda rights. See United States v. Connell, 869 F.2d 1349, 1350 n. 1 (9th Cir.1989) (Because we reverse on the ground that the warnings given [the defendant] were inadequate, we do not reach the issue of waiver.). 23 REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.