# North Carolina v. Butler

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 24, 1979 · 441 U.S. 369

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427548

## Case

- **Full name:** North Carolina v. Butler
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 24, 1979
- **Citations:** 441 U.S. 369; 99 S. Ct. 1755; 60 L. Ed. 2d 286; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 91
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Stewart, Burger, White, Blacicmun, Rehnquist, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, Powell
- **Cited by:** 1,830 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427548

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[a]n express written or oral statement of waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of the validity of that waiver, but is not inevitably either necessary or sufficient to establish waiver.”
- holding that “An express written or oral statement of waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of the validity of that waiver____ The question of the validity of the waiver is not one of form____'”
- holding that express waiver of Miranda rights is not required and that “in at least some cases waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated”
- holding that under Federal constitutional law, an implicit waiver of Miranda rights could be found where an accused expresses an understanding of his rights and gives a statement without expressly waiving the same

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. My joinder, however, rests on the assumption that the Court’s citation to Johnson v. *377 Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938), ante, at 374-375, is not meant to suggest that the “intentional relinquishment of a known right” formula — the formula Zerbst articulated for determining the waiver vel non “of fundamental constitutional rights,” 304 U. S., at 464 — has any relevance in determining whether a defendant has waived his “right to the presence of a lawyer,” ante, at 374, under Miranda’s prophylactic rule.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427548. Public record. Not legal advice.