Court Opinion

ID: 9743543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:36:08.015633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:41.898841
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I continue in my belief that the warnings given to the appellant when he was first arrested were inadequate and it is undisputed that none of the subsequent warnings were sufficient. Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694. The warnings indicated that the accused had a right to have a lawyer present during questioning but stated that “we have no way of giving you a lawyer but one will be appointed for you if and when you go *55to court and the court finds you a pauper.” (Emphasis added.) I continue in my belief that our Constitutions, both State and Federal, guarantee equal treatment to all individuals and classes in our society, both rich and poor, educated and uneducated. The warning does not grant that equal treatment. See my dissents in Dickerson v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 562, 276 N. E. 2d 845, and Jones v. State (1969), 258 Ind. 235, 252 N. E. 2d 572.
Note.—Reported in 284 N. E. 2d 751.