Why did Duckworth v. Eagan allow police to use wording different from the exact Miranda warning?

In the 1989 case Duckworth v. Eagan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police are not required to recite the Miranda warning using the exact language specified in the original 1966 *Miranda v. Arizona* decision.2

The Court determined that the essential purpose of the warning is to ensure that a suspect is clearly informed of their constitutional rights, specifically their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and their right to legal counsel. As long as the warnings delivered by law enforcement effectively convey these protections, the Court held that slight variations or differences in the specific wording used do not violate the suspect's rights. This ruling established that the procedural safeguards mandated by Miranda are not tied to a rigid, verbatim script, provided the substance of the required warnings is accurately communicated to the individual in custody.12