## Facts

- Gary James Eagan, a suspect in a stabbing, was questioned by Indiana police while in custody.
- Before the first interrogation, police used a waiver form advising Eagan of the right to remain silent, that statements could be used in court, the right to consult counsel before and during questioning, and the right to stop answering questions.
- The form also stated that police could not provide a lawyer but one would be appointed “if and when you go to court.”
- After signing the waiver, Eagan made an exculpatory statement.
- Approximately 29 hours later, Eagan was interrogated again after receiving a different waiver form containing standard, unqualified Miranda language (including appointed counsel before questioning).
- Eagan signed the second waiver, confessed, and led officers to physical evidence.
- At trial, Eagan moved to suppress the statements; the trial court admitted them, and he was convicted of attempted murder.
- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- In federal habeas proceedings, the district court denied relief, but the Seventh Circuit granted relief, finding the “if and when you go to court” warning defective.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Miranda warnings are constitutionally inadequate when they include that appointed counsel will be provided “if and when you go to court,” particularly where a later interrogation is preceded by a standard Miranda warning and waiver.
2. Whether such phrasing requires exclusion of a subsequent confession under Miranda.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and denied habeas relief (5–4).
- The Court held that Miranda does not require verbatim recitation of the Miranda opinion; warnings are sufficient if they reasonably convey the required rights.
- The Court concluded that the initial warnings, read as a whole, communicated the right to remain silent, the consequences of speaking, the right to consult counsel before and during questioning, and the right to stop answering.
- The “if and when you go to court” language was treated as describing the state’s procedure for appointment of counsel and did not negate the advisement of the right to counsel during questioning.
- The Court also relied on the fact that Eagan later received a standard Miranda warning, signed waivers on both occasions, and then confessed.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda warnings need not track any fixed script; the constitutional test is whether the warnings reasonably convey the substance of the rights.
- Advising that counsel will be appointed “if and when you go to court” does not necessarily invalidate warnings when, in context, the suspect is also told of the right to consult counsel before and during questioning.
- Miranda does not require police to have counsel immediately available upon request; if counsel is not provided, police may not interrogate unless the suspect waives the right to counsel.
- A confession is admissible where the suspect is adequately warned and knowingly and intelligently waives Miranda rights.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld admission of Eagan’s confession, ruling that the warnings, taken as a whole, reasonably conveyed Miranda rights despite the “if and when you go to court” phrasing, and that Eagan’s waivers supported the confession’s admissibility.


Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989)