As Prysock was 16 years old at the time,[1] Tulare County Sheriff's Sergeant Byrd informed him of his Miranda rights, and notified his parents after he initially refused to answer questions.

The California Court of Appeal, Fifth District reversed and remanded his conviction on the basis that "the rigidity of the Miranda rules and the way in which they are to be applied was conceived of and continues to be recognized as the decision's greatest strength."

In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the Court ruled that Prysock's rights were adequately conveyed and that Miranda v. Arizona did not require a "talismanic incantation.

"[2] In a dissent authored by Justice John P. Stevens, he argued that Sergeant Byrd left out crucial information that Prysock had the right to the services of an attorney regardless of his parent's willingness to hire one.

The ambiguous meaning thus undercuts Miranda's message of "meaningful advice to the unlettered and unlearned in language which he can comprehend and on which he can knowingly act.