Court Opinion

ID: 9473321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:26:19.29629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:27.226363
License: Public Domain

NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
As Justice O’Connor recently stated, “The standard Miranda warnings explicitly inform the suspect of his right to consult a lawyer before speaking.” Oregon v. Elstad, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1297, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). The majority here admits that the right to consult with an attorney before questioning is significant, but it holds that the defendant here was properly informed of his Miranda rights, although not explicitly.
We have observed that it is a simple matter for the police to avoid allegations of error in Miranda warnings by reading the defendant his rights from a prepared form. United States v. Noti, 731 F.2d 610, 614-15 (9th Cir.1984). “Although we do not require such a reading, we encourage it.” Id. at 615. Since we encourage the use of prepared forms, I think we must scrutinize the language in such forms more closely than we would an extemporaneous warning. *1345The majority has found that Guam’s standard Miranda warning, although not explicit, satisfies our minimum requirements. I am afraid that such a rule may provide a disincentive for doing what the majority commendably tries to encourage Guam to do — that is, revise its custodial interrogation warning form to “explicitly inform the suspect of his right to consult a lawyer before speaking.” Elstad, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. at 1297.