What is the state of the law when it comes to the interpretation of the Miranda warning?

The dissent admits that the officer's words could be construed to say you only get a lawyer if you're guilty. Dissent at 1039. This pretty much gives up the ship, as warnings that could be construed in such a manner can't possibly be clear, understandable or appropriate. It is established beyond doubt that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer, Miranda, 384 U.S. at 471, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis added), and that warnings must apprise the accused of his right to have an attorney present, Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 205, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). The whole point of Miranda is to provide assurance that the accused was aware of his rights. 384 U.S. at 472, 86 S.Ct. 1602. There's no such assurance when a warning could be interpreted to say the polar opposite of what Miranda requires.