In Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986), the defendant was arrested for burglary. While he was in custody and without his knowledge, his sister attempted to retain the services of the Public Defender's Officer for him. A lawyer from that office called the station and was told that officers would not question the defendant until the following day. Nevertheless, when officers received information implicating the defendant in a murder, they approached him. After waiving his Miranda rights, he confessed to the murder. His confession was admitted at his murder trial. After rejecting the defendant's Fifth Amendment arguments, the Supreme Court analyzed the facts under the Sixth Amendment. Burbine, 475 U.S. at 428. The Court began with the fundamental notion that the accused is entitled to counsel, but not until the right to counsel attaches. The Court concluded that the interrogation of Burbine took place before his right to counsel had attached with regard to the murder, so Burbine's right to counsel was not violated. Burbine argued that, regardless of the fact that adversary judicial proceedings had not yet begun, his right to counsel had attached simply because a lawyer had been obtained for him. In rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court elaborated on "the underlying purposes of the right to counsel." Id. at 430. It explained that "the Sixth Amendment's intended function is not to wrap a protective cloak around the attorney-client relationship for its own sake any more than it is to protect a suspect from the consequences of his own candor. Its purpose, rather, is to assure that in any criminal prosecution, the accused shall not be left to his own devices in facing the prosecutorial forces of organized society." Id. The Court explained that the inquiry of whether a valid waiver has been established has two distinct dimensions: "First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the 'totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation' reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived." (Moran v. Burbine, at p. 421.)