The defendant in Duckworth v. Eagan argued that when he was told by law enforcement officers that counsel would be appointed for him if and when he went to court, he was confused and misled, thinking he could not have an attorney during interrogation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the defendant's reasoning. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that the "if and when you go to court" language did not make the defendant's Miranda warning inadequate. Further, the Court said that law enforcement officers are not required to repeat the exact words of the Miranda holding in order to render adequate warnings. In addition, the Court held that Miranda does not require that lawyers be on call at police interrogation sites; instead it requires that police cannot question a suspect unless he waives his right to counsel. The Court also held that the defendant's statements regarding his involvement in the crime were properly admitted as evidence.