Escobedo v. Illinois - Significance, The Supreme Court Confirms A Criminal Suspect's Right To Have An Attorney, The Right To Counsel
petitioner respondent decision justices
Petitioner
Danny Escobedo
Respondent
State of Illinois
Petitioner's Claim
That once a person detained by police for questioning about a crime becomes a suspect, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel becomes effective.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Barry L. Kroll
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
James R. Thompson
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Arthur Goldberg (writing for the Court), Earl Warren
Justices Dissenting
Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
22 June 1964
Decision
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that because Escobedo's request to consult with his attorney had been denied and because he had not been warned of his constitutional right to remain silent, his confession was inadmissible and his conviction was reversed.
Related Cases
- Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 (1958).
- Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504 (1958).
- Gideon v Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964).
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 3. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing, 1998.
User Comments
about 3 years ago
First of all, Miranda v. Arizona did not reach a verdict until 1966. Second of all, people who dont know how to spell or punctuate should not be arguing politics.
about 3 years ago
This man has the right to be free not because the police did not say a line. The Miranda Rights were not even created by then. It is his Sixth Amendment right that he has the right to an attorney. Also, the man that had him arrested was also a suspect of the murder. After fourteen and a half hours of people telling you things that might not be true or yelling or who knows how the police interrogated him, just about anyone would do or say something to get out of it. This man could still be innocent. You must look at both sides of the story. Our forefathers made that amendment for a reason even though we may not know other that to be as fair as possible.
over 4 years ago
Hey look it was the police's fault to make such a pathetic mistake on there park they have to know the amendment like there back of there hand. he was released free becouse he deserved to becouse he was smart enough. so look Kelli you better lock up your kids not for escobedo for those dumb police ........
almost 2 years ago
im very glad he didnt win because he didnt haev the right too and he made the confession voluntarilyyyyyy.(: <3
about 3 years ago
the Miranda were created at the time of this case the Miranda rights were around in 1962 and were Immediately adopted by police nationwide and used... when this case came out and violated that the judge decided it was the police's choice. but this man should have been let free he did not murder his brother in-law look at the evidence. it all points at Escobedo's sister. she killed her own husband
about 5 years ago
This man SHOULD NOT have been let free. he should have been locked up. now my kids are running around with a murderer on the lose. soooooooooo yea.
over 3 years ago
Honestly, i think that this man is pitiful, however i do feel that he does have the right to be free. Like bryant said, the government fucked up, not him. Is escobedo the one we should really be worried about. Our government cant even do their job right. We have police officers that cannot even remember a line they have to say. and they even have to say it on a regular basis.