The SCOTUS is considering accepting review of a Florida case that threw out a confession for an alleged Miranda violation. Seems the Miranda warning only told the defendant he could have a lawyer to consult before any questioning. The trial and appellate court said the warning should have more clearly told the defendant that he could have the lawyer DURING questioning.

To read this grammatical masterpiece, click here.

SCOTUS, through Justice Thomas, has stayed the decision, pending a vote on whether to grant cert.

The Florida appellate dissent gets it right:

"Additionally, it will result in reversing the convictions of individuals who have confessed to crimes based upon a holding that is at most an extreme technical adherence to language and that has no connection with whether the person who confessed understood his or her rights."

By the way, this crook had a criminal history and well knew his Miranda rights. His defense focused on the lie that he didn't know there was a gun under his bed. His confession contradicted that defense. [So, wouldn't the confession come in anyway, to impeach his testmony?]

By the way, Texas statutory warning language says: "he has the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to and during any questioning." So, we are covered either way.