United States v. Jeronimo Botello-Rosales, 728 F.3d 865

Botello-Rosales appealed district court's denial of his motion to suppress post-arrest statements.
District court found Spanish warning conveyed Miranda rights; detective used "libre" to mean free or without cost.
Warning stated a lawyer who is free could be appointed, suggesting contingency not obligation.
Botello had prior English Miranda warnings, but government did not clarify which warnings were correct.
District court concluded translation error but did not cure constitutional defect; case remanded after suppression reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Spanish warning reasonably conveyed right to appointed counsel	Botello objected to translation.	Botello contends warnings were adequate.	Warning did not reasonably convey appointment obligation.
Whether prior English warnings cured the defect	English warnings were provided earlier.	Cure not shown; clarification lacking.	Prior English warnings do not cure the Miranda defect.

Florida v. Powell, 560 U.S. 1195 (2010) (require that warnings reasonably convey rights when given in a non-English language)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (Miranda rights conveyance standard)
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981) (no talismanic phrasing required for warnings)
United States v. Perez-Lopez, 348 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2003) (warned must clearly convey right to appointed counsel)
United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2002) (government must clarify which warnings were correct when conflicting warnings occur)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (established Miranda rights and right to counsel)