In the 1987 case Patterson v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated when he made incriminating statements during police questioning after being informed of his Miranda rights but before consulting with an attorney. The court held that by signing a waiver form and agreeing to speak with law enforcement without legal representation present, Billy Patterson had voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The decision hinged on whether or not Patterson understood his rights at the time of interrogation; it was determined that he did understand them and thus could legally waive them if he chose to do so.

In the dissenting opinion for Patterson v. Illinois, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued that a suspect's waiver of Miranda rights should not automatically be considered as a valid waiver of Sixth Amendment rights to counsel during post-indictment questioning. The dissenting justices believed that the majority failed to recognize the distinct protections offered by these two constitutional provisions. They contended that after formal charges have been filed against an individual, their right to legal representation becomes more critical due to increased complexity and potential consequences involved in criminal proceedings at this stage. Therefore, they opined that before any post-indictment interrogation could proceed without counsel present; there must be clear evidence showing suspects fully understood their situation and knowingly waived their Sixth Amendment rights – something which mere understanding and waiving of Miranda warnings does not guarantee.