People v. Valdivia

SONENSHINE, J., Concurring.

I concur in the judgment and the majority’s reasoning with the exception of Part III (majority opn., ante, pp. 662-664).

A Miranda1 waiver is not sufficient unless it informs a suspect he or she has a right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. Hence, I agree with the majority in United States v. Noti (9th Cir. 1984) 731 F.2d 610 [79 A.L.R.Fed. 111] and the court in Windsor v. United States (5th Cir. 1968) 389 F.2d 530.

I, too, turn to the language of Miranda: “[A]n individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he [or she] has the right…