Comprehension Problems?

Yet another Miranda warning case has made its way to the Supreme Court. Kevin Dwayne Powell says his Miranda warning wasn't explicit enough -- that he was not advised that he could have an attorney present while being interrogated by police. Yet Kenneth signed a Miranda statement that says, "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interrogation."

Powell's conviction for illegal possession of a firearm was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court who agreed with him that the Tampa Police didn't adequately convey to him that he could have a lawyer. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Aren't you supposed to tell this person . . . you have a right to have the lawyer with you during interrogation? . . . And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?" Is this man reading the same thing I am? How do you get more explicit than "You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interrogation"?

I understand a con trying to get an overturned conviction on any grounds he can, but what is the matter with these judges? We need some judges who can read!

"A rewrite for Miranda rights?" The Dallas Morning News; December 8, 2009; p. 10A.