Duckworth v. Eagan
 | This article needs attention from an expert in U.S. Supreme Court cases, Law or Miranda Warnings. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. (February 2015) |
| Duckworth v. Eagan | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 29, 1989 Decided June 26, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Jack R. Duckworth v. Gary James Eagan |
| Citations | 492 U.S. 195 (more) 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 |
| Holding | |
| Informing a suspect that an attorney would be appointed for him "if and when you go to court" does not render Miranda warnings inadequate. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Scalia |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with police behavior when issuing the Miranda warning. The Court's decision was seen as weakening Miranda's protections.[1]
Background
After being questioned in regards to the stabbing of a woman, Gary Eagan was improperly read his Miranda Rights when police told him that he would be provided a lawyer "if and when you go to court." During the police investigation, Eagan did not make any incriminating statements, and waived his Miranda rights. The next day, Eagan was questioned again by police, and signed a waiver with the correct Miranda language. During the interrogation, Eagan confessed to the stabbing of the woman and revealed physical evidence of the crime committed. Later, Eagan claimed that the difference between the language in the first waiver he signed, and the second waiver he signed, made his confession inadmissible in a court of law.[2]
Opinion of the Court
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the Court.[3] The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary that the warnings be given in the exact form described in the Miranda decision,[4] provided the warnings as a whole fully informed the suspect of his or her rights.[5]
References
- ^ "Library/Abstracts". National Council Justice Referral Service. Retrieved January 1, 2012.
- ^ "Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195". Oyez: US Supreme Court Media. Retrieved 5 October 2013.
- ^ "Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989)". Justia. Retrieved January 1, 2012.
- ^ "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)". Oyez. Retrieved 5 October 2013.
- ^ (Chapter 5, page 141 of Criminal Investigation "Suspect's Response: Waiver And Alternatives; #4)
Further reading
- Swanson; Chamelin; Territo; Taylor (2012). Criminal Investigation (Eleventh ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780078111525.
External links
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |