Knowledge (XXG)

California v. Prysock

Source 📝

327:. Later, Randall James Prysock and a codefendant were arrested for committing the murder. As Prysock was 16 years old at the time, Tulare County Sheriff's Sergeant Byrd informed him of his Miranda rights, and notified his parents after he initially refused to answer questions. After his parents arrived, Prysock changed his mind and decided to answer Sergeant Byrd's questions on tape. Byrd then reiterated Prysock's rights under Miranda and as a juvenile. He stated that Prysock had the right to have counsel and his parents present before and during questioning, but was not explicitly told that he could request an attorney before further questioning. Byrd then had a conversation with Prysock's mother where she chose not to hire a lawyer. 350:, he argued that Sergeant Byrd left out crucial information that Prysock had the right to the services of an attorney regardless of his parent's willingness to hire one. Instead, the phrasing of " right to have a lawyer appointed to represent you at no cost to yourself" could be construed as having the right to an attorney at trial. The statement about parents being present inserted between the rights to an attorney during questioning, and the untaped conversation with Prysock's mother further muddled the waters. The ambiguous meaning thus undercuts 126: 24: 330:
During Prysock's trial, his motion to suppress the statements was rejected, and he was convicted of first-degree murder. The California Court of Appeal, Fifth District reversed and remanded his conviction on the basis that "the rigidity of the Miranda rules and the way in which they are to be applied
471: 476: 466: 414: 165: 294: 461: 354:
s message of "meaningful advice to the unlettered and unlearned in language which he can comprehend and on which he can knowingly act."
130: 481: 100: 81: 38: 53: 192:
There is no rule requiring that Miranda warnings need to be precise to withstand scrutiny as long as the warnings are effectual.
60: 67: 308: 49: 324: 434: 382: 215: 418: 157: 339:
In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the Court ruled that Prysock's rights were adequately conveyed and that
370: 247: 74: 425: 340: 259: 251: 235: 207: 347: 312: 239: 223: 331:
was conceived of and continues to be recognized as the decision's greatest strength."
455: 395:
Coyote v. United States, 380 F.2d 305, 308 (CA10 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 992.
394: 160: 227: 443: 323:
On January 30, 1978, Donna Iris Erickson was found brutally murdered in
315:
was adequately communicated, it does not need to be precisely phrased.
276:
Burger, joined by Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Rehnquist
125: 17: 311:
case where the Court ruled that as long as the message of a
182:
Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District
472:
United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law
477:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
288: 280: 272: 267: 196: 186: 178: 173: 152: 142: 137: 118: 295:Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution 467:United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions 8: 343:did not require a "talismanic incantation." 147:State of California v. Randall James Prysock 37:Please help improve this article by adding 383:California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981) 115: 101:Learn how and when to remove this message 363: 307:, 453 U.S. 55 (1981) was a per curiam 113:1981 United States Supreme Court case 7: 284:Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall 131:Supreme Court of the United States 14: 421:355 (1981) is available from: 346:In a dissent authored by Justice 124: 22: 33:only references primary sources 462:1981 in United States case law 1: 39:secondary or tertiary sources 309:United States Supreme Court 498: 325:Tulare County, California 293: 201: 191: 123: 482:Miranda warning case law 371:PEOPLE v. PRYSOCK (1982) 50:"California v. Prysock" 216:William J. Brennan Jr. 411:California v. Prysock 304:California v. Prysock 138:Decided June 29, 1981 119:California v. Prysock 444:Library of Congress 248:Lewis F. Powell Jr. 341:Miranda v. Arizona 212:Associate Justices 300: 299: 252:William Rehnquist 236:Thurgood Marshall 111: 110: 103: 85: 489: 448: 442: 439: 433: 430: 424: 397: 392: 386: 380: 374: 368: 208:Warren E. Burger 197:Court membership 128: 127: 116: 106: 99: 95: 92: 86: 84: 43: 26: 25: 18: 497: 496: 492: 491: 490: 488: 487: 486: 452: 451: 446: 440: 437: 431: 428: 422: 406: 401: 400: 393: 389: 381: 377: 369: 365: 360: 348:John P. Stevens 337: 321: 313:Miranda warning 260:John P. Stevens 250: 238: 226: 133: 114: 107: 96: 90: 87: 44: 42: 36: 27: 23: 12: 11: 5: 495: 493: 485: 484: 479: 474: 469: 464: 454: 453: 450: 449: 405: 404:External links 402: 399: 398: 387: 375: 362: 361: 359: 356: 336: 333: 320: 317: 298: 297: 291: 290: 286: 285: 282: 278: 277: 274: 270: 269: 265: 264: 263: 262: 240:Harry Blackmun 224:Potter Stewart 213: 210: 205: 199: 198: 194: 193: 189: 188: 184: 183: 180: 176: 175: 171: 170: 154: 150: 149: 144: 143:Full case name 140: 139: 135: 134: 129: 121: 120: 112: 109: 108: 91:September 2024 30: 28: 21: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 494: 483: 480: 478: 475: 473: 470: 468: 465: 463: 460: 459: 457: 445: 436: 427: 420: 416: 412: 408: 407: 403: 396: 391: 388: 384: 379: 376: 372: 367: 364: 357: 355: 353: 349: 344: 342: 334: 332: 328: 326: 318: 316: 314: 310: 306: 305: 296: 292: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 268:Case opinions 266: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 214: 211: 209: 206: 204:Chief Justice 203: 202: 200: 195: 190: 185: 181: 177: 172: 168: 167: 162: 159: 155: 151: 148: 145: 141: 136: 132: 122: 117: 105: 102: 94: 83: 80: 76: 73: 69: 66: 62: 59: 55: 52: –  51: 47: 46:Find sources: 40: 34: 31:This article 29: 20: 19: 16: 410: 390: 378: 366: 351: 345: 338: 329: 322: 303: 302: 301: 289:Laws applied 255: 243: 231: 219: 174:Case history 164: 146: 97: 88: 78: 71: 64: 57: 45: 32: 15: 228:Byron White 456:Categories 358:References 319:Background 61:newspapers 153:Citations 409:Text of 352:Miranda' 335:Decision 273:Majority 426:Findlaw 373:Findlaw 281:Dissent 187:Holding 75:scholar 447:  441:  438:  435:Justia 432:  429:  423:  385:Justia 258: 256:· 254:  246: 244:· 242:  234: 232:· 230:  222: 220:· 218:  77:  70:  63:  56:  48:  417: 179:Prior 82:JSTOR 68:books 419:U.S. 166:more 158:U.S. 156:453 54:news 415:453 458:: 413:, 161:55 169:) 163:( 104:) 98:( 93:) 89:( 79:· 72:· 65:· 58:· 41:. 35:.

Index

secondary or tertiary sources
"California v. Prysock"
news
newspapers
books
scholar
JSTOR
Learn how and when to remove this message
Supreme Court of the United States
U.S.
55
more
Warren E. Burger
William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart
Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution
United States Supreme Court
Miranda warning
Tulare County, California
Miranda v. Arizona
John P. Stevens
PEOPLE v. PRYSOCK (1982)
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)
Coyote v. United States, 380 F.2d 305, 308 (CA10 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 992.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.