Table of Contents
Summary of Patterson v. Illinois Supreme Court Case
In this state of Illinois Supreme court case, the defendant had been convicted for his involvement in the murder of a rival street gang (Acker & Brody, 2004). When Patterson was being transferred to from the Cook County jail due to his indictment he learnt from a police officer that one of the members involved in the gang had indeed not been indicted. Patterson made efforts to explain to the officer that the unindicted member was indeed the one who committed the murder but was instead administered with Miranda warnings during which he proceeded to give a lengthy incriminating statement (Acker & Brody, 2004). After admission of these statements during trial he ended being convicted for murder. He later appealed but was denied on the fact that he did not knowingly waive for his sixth amendment right to counsel before giving his uncounseled postindictment confessions (Acker & Brody, 2004). However, Patterson’s argument were based on the fact that he deserved protection for his Fifth Amendment rights as stated or required by Miranda, hence he was not duly informed of his right to counsel going by the sixth amendment rights (Acker & Brody, 2004). Despite Patterson’s efforts, his claims were rejected by the Supreme Court.
In this case, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the decision to reject Patterson’s claims on the case. This informed by the fact that after making his inquiry regarding other members involved in the gang, the police officer implemented correct measures by interrupting him then administering the Miranda warnings after which he proceeded to secure Patterson’s waiver (Acker & Brody, 2004). A new set of Miranda rights were administered to Patterson by the assistant state attorney, however, Patterson went ahead and gave his confession without knowledge of his sixth amendment rights to counsel. In this case, it is evident that Patterson acted in utter negligence of the fact that he deserves to request for a state counsel before giving his confessions according to the sixth amendment rights. Hence his assumption that he was supposed to be informed prior to his confessions are unsubstantiated since it is a common approach before any criminal conviction to request for a lawyer to represent the individual. This serves to affirm the fact, “…he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel before he gave his uncounseled postindictment confessions” (Acker & Brody, 2004).