Escobedo v. Illinois
Significance, The Supreme Court Confirms A Criminal Suspect's Right To Have An Attorney, The Right To Counsel
State of Illinois
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
Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
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.
- 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
- Ernesto Miranda Trials: 1963 1967 - Tainted Evidence, Conviction Overturned
- Escobedo v. Illinois - Significance
- Escobedo v. Illinois - Further Readings
- Escobedo v. Illinois - The Supreme Court Confirms A Criminal Suspect's Right To Have An Attorney
- Escobedo v. Illinois - The Right To Counsel
- Other Free Encyclopedias