This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Mandujano (D) arranged to sell heroin to an undercover agent. For one reason or another, the deal never got completed, and the agent closed his file. Later, D was called by a grand jury to testify about drug traffic in the area. Upon his arrival, D was informed of his duties, and that he had the right not to answer incriminatory questions. He was informed that he could have a lawyer, but D replied that he could not afford one. He was not informed of his right to have counsel provided for him. D made incriminating statements at the grand jury hearing, and he was subsequently indicted and convicted. D appealed, claiming that his grand jury testimony should be suppressed since he was not given full Miranda warnings prior to the hearing. The District Court sustained the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.