 The court then considered whether the accused had taken action that waived those rights . <unk> must be a free choice with full awareness ( Moran v. <unk> ) . Miranda v. Arizona ( the Miranda ruling ) states that " [ A ] heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self @-@ incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel . " It was noted that the accused had read and expressed understanding of the rights , and had them read aloud , he had not pleaded lack of understanding , was given time , and therefore knew his rights . Specifically , having read the 5th warning ( " you have the right to decide at any time before or during questioning to use your right to remain silent and your right to talk with a lawyer while you are being questioned " ) he was aware this right was enduring and could be applied at any time in the questioning if he chose , and the police would have to honor the invocation if he did so . The court observed that " [ p ] <unk> are not required to <unk> suspects from time to time " . That a question is linked to religious beliefs does not cause the reply to be " involuntary " . The accused , understanding his rights and that they were capable of invocation at any point , had not chosen to invoke them . 
