Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Patterson Vs. Illinois

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 1988

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

65 entries 7 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Brewer Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1977
  2. Johnson Vs. Zerbst US Supreme Court · May 23, 1938
  3. Moran Vs. Burbine US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1986
  4. Fields Vs. Wyrick US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1983
  5. Rhode Island Vs. Innis US Supreme Court · May 12, 1980
  6. Von Moltke Vs. Gillies US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1948
  7. Maine Vs. Moulton US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1985
  8. U.S. 285 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Patterson v. Illinois
    Search
  9. U.S. 285 (1988) Patterson v. Illinois
    Search
  10. initiated by the authorities. On both occasions, petitioner was read a form waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  11. barred from initiating questioning, since he at no time sought to have counsel present. The essence of Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  12. have stopped, and further questioning would have been forbidden unless he himself initiated the meeting. Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  13. Jackson's murder. A few hours later, petitioner was apprehended. Petitioner was informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  14. right to counsel. The Illinois Supreme Court, however, rejected this theory, applying its previous decision in People v. Owens
    Search
  15. sufficient to make a defendant aware of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during postindictment questioning. People v. Thomas
    Search
  16. authorities. Our cases make it plain that the Sixth Amendment guarantees this right to criminal defendants. Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  17. Massiah v. United
    Search
  18. under Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  19. questioning would have been forbidden (unless petitioner called for such a meeting). This was our holding in Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  20. Michigan v. Mosley
    Search
  21. See Brewer v. Williams
    Search
  22. Adams v. United
    Search
  23. that his waiver of these rights was unknowing. Cf. United States v. Washington
    Search
  24. defeat the State's showing that the information it provided to him satisfied the constitutional minimum. Cf. Oregon v. Elstad
    Search
  25. See Moran v. Burbine
    Search
  26. See United States v. Ash
    Search
  27. and the procedures that must be observed, before permitting him to waive his right to counsel at trial. See Faretta v. California
    Search
  28. Von Moltke v. Gillies
    Search
  29. petitioner concedes that he was informed of his right to counsel to the extent required by our decision in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  30. Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  31. constitutional safeguards aimed at preserving the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship takes effect. See Maine v. Moulton
    Search
  32. Indeed, the analysis changes markedly once an accused even requests the assistance of counsel. See Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  33. immediately dissolve the effectiveness of his waiver with respect to any subsequent statements. See, e.g., Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  34. in Sixth Amendment cases would provide any meaningful improvement in the Miranda warnings. Cf. Brewer v. Williams
    Search
  35. should be. See, e.g., Felder v. McCotter
    Search
  36. Robinson v. Percy
    Search
  37. should be informed that he has been indicted before a postindictment waiver is sought. See, e.g., United States v. Mohabir
    Search
  38. United States v. Payton
    Search
  39. must be completed before a Sixth Amendment waiver can be effectuated for postindictment questioning. See United States v. Mohabir
    Search
  40. in the Sixth Amendment context, this waiver would not be valid. See Moran v. Burbine
    Search
  41. however, once the accused is indicted, such questioning would be prohibited. See United States v. Henry
    Search
  42. extends beyond Miranda's protection of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, see Maine v. Moulton
    Search
  43. a waiver which would be valid under Miranda will not suffice for Sixth Amendment purposes. See also Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  44. United States v. Mohabir
    Search
  45. decision itself, the analysis and disposition of the waiver question relied on this Court's decision in Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  46. Moran v. Burbine
    Search
  47. McDowell v. United
    Search
  48. Michigan v. Jackson
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Patterson v. Illinois
    Search
  50. Miranda v. Arizona
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial