Court Opinion

ID: 9427548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:08.43869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.665978
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. My joinder, however, rests on the assumption that the Court’s citation to Johnson v. *377Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938), ante, at 374-375, is not meant to suggest that the “intentional relinquishment of a known right” formula — the formula Zerbst articulated for determining the waiver vel non “of fundamental constitutional rights,” 304 U. S., at 464 — has any relevance in determining whether a defendant has waived his “right to the presence of a lawyer,” ante, at 374, under Miranda’s prophylactic rule.