Is there any case law or case law supporting a Defendant's claim that the Miranda warning given to him was defective?

Defendant does not assert that the warning given to him was defective under Miranda v. State of Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, but that he did not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive the constitutional rights reflected in the warning. Defendant's counsel points out in his carefully researched brief that the drugs defendant had taken prior to receiving the Miranda warnings affect thinking and comprehension and the compound effects of alcohol and barbiturates last much longer in time than that of either used alone.