Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972

Escobedo v. Illinois - Significance, The Supreme Court Confirms A Criminal Suspect's Right To Have An Attorney, The Right To Counsel

petitioner west respondent lawyer


Danny Escobedo


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


Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

22 June 1964


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).


West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 3. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing, 1998.

Evans v. Newton - Significance, A Bequest To The Public, A Public Or A Private Facility?, Impact, De Facto Segregation [next] [back] Ernesto Miranda Trials: 1963 1967 - Tainted Evidence, Conviction Overturned

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

over 3 years ago

Who cares in the end. I'm sure the majority of those who will post on this statement has either done worse or has already submitted to a similar crime. If you fear for your children, keep an eye on them. If you fear for yourself, learn how to defend.

Vote down Vote up

over 8 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.

Vote down Vote up

over 8 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.

Vote down Vote up

over 8 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

Vote down Vote up

about 10 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 ........

Vote down Vote up

almost 2 years ago


Murderers are on the loose every day. Why does it matter that this specific one might be a murderer. We don't even really know that he did it. Stick with the facts.

Vote down Vote up

almost 9 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.

Vote down Vote up

about 3 years ago


Vote down Vote up

about 4 years ago

lol what

Vote down Vote up

about 7 years ago

im very glad he didnt win because he didnt haev the right too and he made the confession voluntarilyyyyyy.(: <3

Vote down Vote up

over 10 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.