Miranda Rights Re-Write

Today, I saw a really interesting article about how the supreme court is discussing if the Miranda Rights are explicit enough. A man accused of illegal possession of fire arms claims his were not explicit enough. The man signed a Miranda statement that read, "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 interview." His lawyer is arguing that this statement doesn't explicitly state that the man is allowed a lawyer while he is being interrogated. He felt that it made it seem as though he had no right to have a lawyer present during his interrogation and that he in fact wasn't allowed to have one at all. The prosecutors lawyer said that the warning the offender was given by the police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning."

I think this is an interesting case because for the past month or so of class, we have discussed civil liberties being taken away or laws being too vague. In this situation, I find it interesting that they are trying to in fact make the right more explicit. I wonder why the supreme court has decided to discuss the topic of re-writing the Miranda Rights now. In my opinion, I feel that his rights were told to him explicitly enough. If I had been in his shoes, I would have read the statement and understood clearly what it meant. Also, I think it is interesting as well that if he didn't understand the statement, why would he sign it?