In Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) 492 U.S. 195, 198, the interrogating officers issued Miranda advisements to the defendant informing him, inter alia, that he had a right to counsel during questioning, the right to stop questioning until he had talked to a lawyer, and the right to stop questioning at any time. In addition, the officers said, "An attorney will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court." (Ibid.) After the defendant waived his rights and confessed to the crime alleged against him, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the additional information rendered the Miranda advisements constitutionally defective, reasoning that it suggested that indigents lacked the right to appointed counsel before any interrogation. (Id. at p. 199.) The United States Supreme Court reversed that decision, concluding that the defendant had received adequate Miranda advisements, and that the additional information was merely an accurate statement of state procedure regarding the appointment of counsel. (Id. at pp. 203-204.) In so holding, the high court remarked that "it must be relatively commonplace for a suspect, after receiving Miranda warnings, to ask when he will obtain counsel." (Id. at p. 204.)