In Duckworth v. Eagan, the suspect, Gary James Eagan, was advised that counsel could be appointed for him only if and when he went to court. The Supreme Court held that the phrasing "if and when you go to court" did not render the Miranda warnings inadequate, because this and the other warnings reasonably explained the suspect's rights. Thus, criticism of the warnings should be directed at changing the procedure for appointing counsel and not at the application of the warnings. A concurring opinion also hinted that the Court would consider extending the 1976 decision in Stone v. Powell to bar claims of technical violations of Miranda from Federal habeas corpus proceedings. However, this extension of the Stone decision would be inappropriate, because the Stone reasoning does not justify excluding Miranda claims from these proceedings. 195 footnotes.