The four procedural warnings provided by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda encompassed the following: He must be warned prior to any questioning that: (1) he has the right to remain silent; (2) that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; (3) that he has the right to the presence of an attorney; (4) that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. 384 U.S. at 479. After Miranda, this Court and the United States Supreme Court have stressed that there is no talismanic incantation required to ensure the warnings are sufficiently conveyed. See Anderson v. State, 863 So. 2d 169, 182 (Fla. 2003) ("Although Miranda warnings must be given to suspects before custodial interrogation can begin, there is no talismanic fashion in which they must be read or a prescribed formula that they must follow, as long as the warnings are not misleading."); see also California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S. Ct. 2806, 69 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1981). The High Court further stated that the examination of a Miranda warning should not be done as if "construing a will" or "defining the terms of an easement." Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203, 109 S. Ct. 2875, 106 L. Ed. 2d 166 (1989). Instead, "the inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably 'convey to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda.'" Id. (quoting Prysock, 453 U.S. at 361). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has elaborated on the general scope of Miranda, stating that "the crucial test is whether the words in the context used, considering the age, background and intelligence of the individual being interrogated, impart a clear, understandable warning of all of his rights." Coyote v. United States, 380 F.2d 305, 308 (10th Cir. 1967). In Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 961-62 (Fla. 1992), the Supreme Court of Florida expressly defined the right to have the help of a lawyer to mean "that the suspect has the right to consult with a lawyer before being interrogated and to have the lawyer present during interrogation." Id. at 966 n.13. "A prime purpose of the above safeguards is to maintain a bright-line standard for police interrogation; any statement obtained in contravention of these guidelines violates the Florida Constitution and may not be used by the State." Id.In delineating these rights, we noted that in Miranda, "the federal Court established procedural safeguards similar to those defined above in order to ensure the voluntariness of statements rendered during custodial interrogation." Traylor, 596 So. 2d at 965 n.12.