BACK TO Criminal Law & Procedure

Patterson v. Illinois:

US Supreme Court, 1988 (White)

Author: P.V. Neff

1. F: ∆ was a member of the “Vice Lords,” a gang that on 8/21/83 got into a fight with a rival gang, then went to a house where Jackson (ex-member of the other gang) confronted them. Several of the gang members, including ∆, beat Jackson and left him lying face down in a puddle (he died). Several of the Vice Lords were brought in for questioning regarding the first incident, at which point ∆ was given a Miranda warning and waived it. He answered questions about the fight. On 8/23 he was indicted for the murder of Jackson. He was given a Miranda warning again, and again waived and gave an account of the murder.
1. ∆ filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he had not knowingly waived his 6^th amendment right to counsel before giving his postindictment confession.
2. I: Was ∆, who had waived his 6^th Amendment rights during postindictment questioning, sufficiently aware of his right and the consequences of waiving it?
3. H/R:
1. Yes. The waiver was valid.
2. The Miranda warnings made him aware of his right to have counsel present, and that counsel would be provided if necessary. The warning also made him aware of the consequences of waiving his right. If, after all this, he still lacked “a full and complete appreciation” of the consequences of his waiver, it does not defeat the state’s showing that the information provided met the Constitutional minimum.
3. An accused who has been given a Miranda warning has been sufficiently appraised of his 6^th Amendment rights and the consequences of waiving them that his waiver will be considered a knowing and intelligent one.
4. Although there are differences between the 5^th and 6^th Amendments, neither is superior or greater than the other.
5. The scope of the right to counsel depends on the usefulness of counsel in the proceedings—e.g., the right is stronger at trial than during questioning, since counsel plays a more important role at trial.
4. Dissent (Stevens):
1. The 6^th Amendment requires a clear line to be drawn at the point where adversary proceedings commence. At this point it is impermissible for adversary counsel (prosecution) or his investigators to conduct private interviews with ∆.
2. It is analogous to civil suits, in which it is unethical for counsel to question his adversary without the adversary’s counsel present. Once the proceedings have begun no warning, including Miranda, given by accused’s adversary is sufficient for him to waive his rights based on.
3. There must be careful discussion of the pitfalls of waiving a 6^th Amendment right, and the accused’s adversary cannot give this warning.