Whether a Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) rights advisal is invalid if police indicate the right to appointed counsel prior to questioning is discretionary

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), rights advisal is invalid if police indicate the right to appointed counsel prior to questioning is discretionary by advising an individual that an attorney “can” be appointed to him without cost if he cannot afford one, as opposed to providing the required advisal that counsel “will” be appointed in such a circumstance? Prefix