Informing a Criminal Defendant of His Right to the Presence of Appointed Lawyer Prior to and During Interrogation
In California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S. Ct. 2806, 69 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1981), the United States Supreme Court analyzed whether a criminal defendant was adequately informed of his right to the presence of appointed counsel prior to and during interrogation.
The Prysock Court stated that a warning was adequate if it fully conveyed the right to have a lawyer present prior to and during interrogation and to have a lawyer appointed at no cost if he could not afford one.
In so holding, the High Court noted that the warning given in that case was adequate because it did not suggest any limitation on the right to the presence of appointed counsel different from the clearly conveyed rights to a lawyer prior to and during interrogation in general and did not associate the offer of an appointed attorney with a future point in time after the conclusion of the police interrogation, such as an upcoming court date. See id. at 360-61.