In Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that the uncounseled postindictment statements of an accused were admissible against him despite the fact that his right to counsel had come into existence. The fact that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right came into existence with his indictment, i.e., that he had such a right at the time of his questioning, does not distinguish him from the preindictment interrogatee whose right to counsel is in existence and available for his exercise while he is questioned. Had the defendant indicated that he wanted the assistance of counsel, the authorities' interview with him would have stopped, and further questioning would have been forbidden . . . . Because the defendant had not yet been arraigned and had adequately waived his right to counsel, as he did his Miranda rights, the fact that his rights to counsel existed would not require the suppression of his statements." Id., 613.