California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Winkler, 178 Cal.App.3d 750, 224 Cal.Rptr. 28 (Cal. App. 1986):
We agree the warning is ambiguous. Whether the officer used the word "and" or "then" the warning could be interpreted to mean an indigent is [178 Cal.App.3d 754] entitled to an appointed attorney during court proceedings but not during police investigation. Of course, "[a]mbiguities in the warnings must be resolved against the prosecution." (People v. Stewart (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 366, 378, 73 Cal.Rptr. 484.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.