Patterson v. Illinois
United States Supreme Court
487 U.S. 285 (1988)
Facts
Patterson (defendant) was one of three gang members who were indicted for the murder of a rival gang member. Before being transferred to the county jail, Patterson asked one of the police officers who else had been indicted for the murder. Upon hearing that one of his fellow gang members had not been charged, Patterson voiced his surprise, stating that the man omitted had planned everything and that there was a witness who could prove it. At this point, the officer stopped Patterson and handed him a Miranda waiver form to inform him of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. Patterson signed the form and then told the officer about killing the rival gang member, making incriminating statements about himself. Later, Patterson was interviewed by the Assistant State’s Attorney. The attorney went over the Miranda form Patterson had signed earlier and Patterson said he understood his rights. Patterson then made more incriminating statements. Before trial, Patterson moved to have his statements suppressed. The trial court denied Patterson’s motion and the jury convicted him. The state supreme court then rejected Patterson’s theory that he knowingly and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment right to counsel but not his Sixth Amendment right. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
Dissent (Blackmun, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
