California v. Prysock
United States Supreme Court
453 U.S. 355 (1981)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Prysock (defendant) and a codefendant were suspects in the murder of Donna Iris Erickson. At the police station, Prysock was given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and refused to speak. After Prysock’s parents arrived, Prysock agreed to be interrogated. The officer again gave Prysock all of the Miranda warnings, but did not follow the same formulation set forth in Miranda. In particular, the warning that Prysock had a right to have an attorney appointed for free came several warnings after the warning that Prysock had a right to consult with an attorney and have that attorney present during questioning. The trial court denied Prysock’s motion to suppress the interrogation. Prysock was tried by jury and convicted of first-degree murder. The appellate court reversed the conviction on the ground that the Miranda warnings were not sufficient and ordered a new trial. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.