1 minute read

Duckworth v. Eagan

Significance, Impact


Jack R. Duckworth


Gary James Eagan

Petitioner's Claim

That the respondent's rights were not violated simply because police officers failed to follow the exact wording of Miranda during the interrogation process.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

David Michael Wallman

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Howard B. Eisenberg

Justices for the Court

Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens


Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

26 June 1989


Respondent's Miranda rights were not violated, even if they were not delivered to the respondent exactly as written in Miranda. The Court held that Miranda rights are not prescriptive inasmuch as they express a means by which law enforcement can ensure that the rights of a suspect are not infringed upon when gathering probative evidence.

Related Cases

  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
  • Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976).
  • California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).

Further Readings

  • Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
  • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994