United States Ninth Circuit

ResetAA Font size: Print

US v. Loucious, 16-10121

In a case in which the defendant argued that the Miranda warnings he received were constitutionally deficient because they did not tell him of his right to consult with an attorney before questioning, the district court's order suppressing defendant's statements is reversed whereL 1) before the start of custodial interrogation, defendant received warnings informing him he had the right to remain silent, he had the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and that if he could not afford an attorney, an attorney would be appointed before questioning; 2) Miranda warnings need not follow a precise formulation, and the warnings given to defendant adequately conveyed that he had the right to consult with an attorney before questioning even though they did not explicitly inform him of that right; and 3) this right was reasonably to be inferred.

Appellate Information

  • Argued
  • Submitted
  • Decided
  • Published 2017/02/07




  • United States Ninth Circuit


FindLaw Career Center

      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More