Does the Miranda warning need to be recited in clear and unequivocal terms?

The question before us is not, as the United States Supreme Court per curiam opinion would have it framed, whether there must be a "talismanic incantation" of the Miranda language. (California v. Prysock, supra, 101 S.Ct. at p. 2809.) Rather, the question is whether appellant was "adequately and effectively apprised of his rights," "in clear and unequivocal terms." (Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 467-468, 86 S.Ct. at pp. 1624-25.) I believe that as a matter of California law, the advisement in the instant case did not adequately inform the defendant of his key right to have a free lawyer before and during the police interrogation. The basis of this is not a requirement of an exact recitation of the traditional Miranda warning, ⁴ nor a requirement of any particular sequencing, but simply the reality that the words chosen by the sergeant did not communicate the necessary information.