Page:United States Reports, Volume 542.djvu/650

Rh The upshot of all this advice is a question ﬁrst practice of some popularity, as one can see from the reported cases describing its use, sometimes in obedience to departmental policy.

When a confession so obtained is offered and challenged, attention must be paid to the conﬂicting objects of Miranda and question ﬁrst. Miranda addressed "interrogation practiceslikelyto disable [an individual] from making a free and rational choice" about speaking, 384 U.S., at 464–465, and held that a suspect must be "adequately and effectively" advised of the choice the Constitution guarantees, id., at 467. The object of question ﬁrst is to render Miranda warnings ineffective by waiting for a particularly opportune time to give them, after the suspect has already confessed.

Just as "no talismanic incantation [is] required to satisfy [Miranda ' s] strictures," California v. Prysock, , 359 (1981) (per curiam), it would be absurd to think that mere recitation of the litany suffices to satisfy Miranda in every conceivable circumstance. "The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably 'conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.'" Duckworth v. Eagan,, 203 (1989) (quoting Prysock, supra, at 361). The threshold issue when interrogators question ﬁrst and warn later is thus whether it would be reasonable to ﬁnd that in these circumstances the warnings could function "