Sixth Amendment -- Waiver of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel at Post-Indictment Interrogation

• NCJ Number: 116480
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 79 Issue: 3 Dated: (Fall 1988) Pages: 795-834
• Author(s): J S Banas
• Date Published: 1988
• Length: 40 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article discusses a recent Supreme Court holding that a defendant's sixth amendment right was not violated when he waived his right to counsel during post-indictment interrogation and then later, knowing of his indictment, submitted to interviews initiated by law enforcement personnel when he neither had counsel nor requested counsel and made voluntary, inculpatory statements.

Abstract

The facts and procedural history of the case, Patterson v. Illinois, are discussed in detail, with emphasis on the Court's holding that a defendant's uncounseled, inculpatory statements are valid provided the State can prove that the defendant's waiver was 'knowing and intelligent.' A properly administered Miranda warning was deemed by the Court to be sufficient to support a waiver of the defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel. The article argues that the Patterson opinion erodes the sixth amendment right to counsel of indicted persons and should be reversed. To protect the accused, the Court should have required that the State inform the accused of his indictment before the execution of a valid waiver could occur. 292 footnotes.