Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Patterson v. Illinois

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentRight to CounselPostindictment InterrogationWaiverSixth AmendmentMirandawaiver

Facts

After a grand jury indicted Patterson for murder, police removed him from lockup and told him he was being transferred because he had been indicted. When Patterson began speaking about the case, the officer stopped him, gave him Miranda warnings, had him read and initial each warning, and obtained a signed waiver form. Patterson then gave a detailed inculpatory statement, and later that day gave another confession to an assistant state's attorney after again being advised of his Miranda rights and signing another waiver. At the time of questioning, Patterson had not retained or accepted appointed counsel, and he never requested counsel during the interviews.

Issue

Whether police interrogation of Patterson after indictment violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. More specifically, whether police were barred from initiating contact once the Sixth Amendment right had attached, and whether Miranda warnings were sufficient to produce a knowing and intelligent waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during postindictment questioning.

Rule

Once adversary proceedings have begun, an accused has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at postindictment questioning, but police are not barred from initiating questioning unless the accused has invoked that right. A waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during postindictment questioning is knowing and intelligent, as a general matter, when the accused receives Miranda warnings that sufficiently apprise him of the right to counsel during questioning and the consequences of abandoning that right, provided the waiver is uncoerced.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A grand jury in Ohio indicts Devin Cole for armed robbery. Before any lawyer has been retained or appointed, detectives in Cleveland approach Devin in jail, tell him they want to ask about the robbery, give full Miranda warnings, obtain a signed waiver, and question him. Devin never asks for counsel and gives an incriminating statement.

Is Devin's statement most likely admissible against him on Sixth Amendment grounds?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, once adversary proceedings begin, the accused has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at postindictment questioning, but police are not barred from initiating contact merely because the right has attached. If the accused has not requested counsel and receives Miranda warnings that make him aware of the right to counsel during questioning and the consequences of speaking, those warnings generally support a knowing and intelligent Sixth Amendment waiver, so long as the waiver is uncoerced.