skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 119511 Find in a Library
Title: Law of the Case: Duckworth v. Eagan, United States Supreme Court, Decided June 26, 1989, 57 LW 4942 (From Crime to Court: Police Officer's Handbook P 5-11, (1989), Joseph C Coleman)
Author(s): J C Coleman
Corporate Author: South Carolina Criminal Justice Acad
Division of the Dept of Public Safety
United States of America
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 7
Sponsoring Agency: South Carolina Criminal Justice Acad
Columbia, SC 29210
South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Council
Columbia, SC 29201
Type: Training (Aid/Material)
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article outlines the substantive and procedural issues of Duckworth v. Eagan, a 1988 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers may issue valid Miranda warnings without using the exact language handed down in the Miranda decision.
Abstract: 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.
Main Term(s): Miranda rights
Index Term(s): Rights of the accused; US Supreme Court decisions
Note: Article based on Crime to Court, a monthly continuing education television program for law enforcement officers produced by S. C. ETV and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.