KREPEL

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Delgado-Armenta, 429 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
  …inadequate, reasoning that: This Court has never indicated that the “rigidity” of Miranda extends to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Lamia, 429 F. 2d 373, 375-376 (CA2), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 907, 91 S.Ct. 150, 27 L.Ed.2d 146 (1970). This Court and others have stressed as one virtue of Miranda the fact that the giving of the warnings obviates the need for a case-by-case inquiry into the actual voluntariness of the admissions of the accused.…
• United States v. Burns, 684 F.2d 1066 (2d Cir. 1982)
  …among other things, that he had a right to remain silent, that he had the right to an attorney and that if he was not able to afford a lawyer, one would be appointed for him. In United States v. Lamia, 429 F. 2d 373, 376-77 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 907, 91 S.Ct. 150, 27 L.Ed.2d 146 (1970), this court held, under similar circumstances, that failure expressly to tell a defendant that he could have an attorney present during questioning did not render warnings constitutionally deficient when, taken a…
• United States v. Noti, 731 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1984)
  …sfied by the inference that can be drawn from the combination of statements that the individual has the right to remain silent and that he has the right to consult with counsel. See United States v. Lamia, 429 F. 2d 373, 377 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 907, 91 S.Ct. 150, 27 L.Ed.2d 146 (1970). Accord, United States v. Adams, 484 F. 2d 357, 361-62 (7th Cir. 1973). The Fifth Circuit, however, rejects this approach. It explicitly concludes that “[mjerely telling [a defendant] that he could speak with an…