see Glover, 596 F.2d at 865. Here, none of these considerations are present. Garibay was not given a written waiver to sign in either English or Spanish nor was he advised of his rights in Spanish. Garibay’s rights were recited to him only in English. Although translators were available at the time of Garibay’s arrest, they were not brought in to help question him. The prosecution offered no evidence that Agent Burke individually explained each constitutional right to Garibay or repeated the explanation. Moreover, Garibay had no previous experience with the criminal process. Thus, Gari-bay’s personal life experiences do not indicate that he was familiar with his Miranda rights and his option to waive those rights. See e.g., Cooper v. Griffin, 455 F.2d 1142, 1144-45, (5th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). The prosecution, however, contends that
holding that in view of armed robbery defendants mental retardation poor reading comprehension and no prior experience with the criminal process confessions obtained after defendants orally waived right to counsel and signed written waiver forms were inadmissable recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that a defendants statements were voluntary after defendant initially refused to sign waiver but later initiated the contact with police and signed the waiver holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings