Opinion ID: 1746854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The General Scope of the Miranda Warnings

Text: In applying the Miranda principles, the Supreme Court has said that Miranda does not mandate that the warnings be a virtual incantation of the precise language contained in the Miranda opinion. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 355, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981). Moreover, in Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989), the Supreme Court further said that [r]eviewing courts ... need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably `conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda. ' Id. at 203, 109 S.Ct. 2875 (quoting Prysock, 453 U.S. at 361, 101 S.Ct. 2806). Similarly, to ensure the voluntariness of confessions as required by article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution, this Court in Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957 (Fla.1992), outlined the following rights Florida suspects must be told of prior to custodial interrogation: [1] they have a right to remain silent, [2] that anything they say will be used against them in court, [3] that they have a right to a lawyer's help, [2] and [4] that if they cannot pay for a lawyer one will be appointed to help them. Id. at 966 (footnote omitted); see also Cuervo, 967 So.2d at 160 (reiterating the Miranda warnings). In Anderson v. State, 863 So.2d 169 (Fla.2003), we further noted, Although Miranda warnings must be given to suspects before custodial interrogation can begin, there is no talismanic fashion in which they must be read or a prescribed formula that they must follow, as long as the warnings are not misleading. Id. at 182. However, we also unequivocally said that the help of an attorney includes both the right to consult with an attorney before questioning and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. See Traylor, 596 So.2d at 966 n. 13.