of his Fifth Amendment rights. He argues that Detective Thomas knew that defendant believed that an oral statement could not be used against him at trial, and that the officer failed to rectify the misconception. (Defendant has never contended that he actually believed his oral statements to be inadmissible.) However, the trial court found that Detective Thomas had properly advised defendant of his Fifth Amendment rights and that defendant understood them when he made his statement. The responsibility of law-enforcement authorities to inform defendants of their rights ends with the proper administration of Miranda warnings. State v. McKnight, 52 N.J. 35, 47, 55, 243 A.2d 240 (1968); cf. Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 292-94, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 2395-96,101 L.Ed.2d 261, 272-73 (1988) (<HOLDING>). That Detective Thomas told defendant his
holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel holding that because miranda warnings make defendant aware of right to counsel and of consequences of waiving sixth amendment rights defendants waiver of right to counsel after receiving such warnings is valid recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel